Skip to main content

Security report for icmje.org

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) operates as a small, specialized non-profit organization focused on improving the quality and integrity of medical journal publishing worldwide. Their website serves as a central hub for publishing editorial recommendations, disclosure forms, and guidance for authors and editors in the medical research community. The organization is well-established with a domain age of over 20 years, reflecting its longstanding presence and authority in the healthcare publishing sector. Technically, the website employs a basic but functional technology stack including jQuery, Google Analytics, and Font Awesome. Hosting appears to be supported by Amazon AWS DNS infrastructure. While the site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile use, there are opportunities for modernization, especially upgrading outdated JavaScript libraries and enhancing accessibility features. SEO and navigation are well implemented, supporting a positive user experience. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and Google Analytics but lacks DNSSEC and important security headers, which lowers its security posture. No explicit privacy or cookie policies were found, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other privacy regulations. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact further limits transparency. Overall, the security risk is moderate but manageable with improvements. The website content is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences, with no adult or questionable content detected. The business credibility is high due to clear organizational information and association with reputable medical journals. Strategic recommendations include implementing privacy and cookie policies, upgrading technical components, enabling DNSSEC, and publishing security policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching icmje.org

This scan found 23 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
67
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
70

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention icmje.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for icmje.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

ICMJE holds a strong market position as a recognized authority in medical journal editorial standards. Its business model is non-profit, focusing on providing editorial recommendations and disclosure forms to medical journals and researchers globally. The target audience includes medical journal editors, authors, and healthcare professionals. The organization benefits from partnerships with leading medical journals and institutions, enhancing its credibility and reach. Growth indicators include regular updates to recommendations and engagement with the medical publishing community. The partnership ecosystem includes reputable journals and medical associations, reinforcing its influence in the healthcare publishing sector.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate. The website uses HTTPS but lacks DNSSEC and critical security headers, which are important for preventing common web attacks. The use of an outdated jQuery version introduces potential vulnerabilities. No privacy or cookie policies are published, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. Incident response readiness is unclear due to lack of published contact channels for security issues. Data protection practices appear minimal, with no visible data retention or user consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture could be improved by adopting modern security best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
  2. Upgrade jQuery and other JavaScript libraries to current secure versions.
  3. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Publish a security policy and provide clear incident response contact information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Description
The ICMJE is a small group of general medical journal editors and representatives of selected related organizations working together to improve the quality of medical science and its reporting. They publish Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Key services
Publishing editorial recommendations, Disclosure of interest forms, Providing guidance on clinical trial registration, Hosting resources and FAQs for medical publishing
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.2.6, Google Analytics (ga.js), Font Awesome, HTML5shiv
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by Google Analytics script loading over https)
  • No DNSSEC enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured for its niche audience.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies explicitly found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. Use of outdated JavaScript libraries may pose security risks.
  4. No visible security headers or explicit security policies published.
  5. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and long-term operation.
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the homepage; contact form link provided.
  7. Google Analytics is used for tracking without visible cookie consent mechanism.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a legacy version of jQuery (1.2.6), which is outdated and may contain security vulnerabilities. Google Analytics is implemented via the older ga.js script. The site uses Font Awesome for icons and includes HTML5shiv for legacy browser support. Hosting is likely on Amazon AWS infrastructure based on DNS nameservers. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is supported by meta viewport tags and structured navigation. There is no detected CMS, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Modernization opportunities include updating libraries, improving mobile responsiveness, and enhancing accessibility compliance.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with icmje.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review icmje.org.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.