Skip to main content

Security report for icpcorp.com

ICP · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ICP is a US-based IT services company founded in 1989, providing comprehensive technology solutions including lifecycle management, mobile managed services, data center and networking, cybersecurity, electrical services, and application development. The company serves a diverse client base including Fortune 1000 companies, mid-size commercial firms, and government agencies primarily in the greater New York area. ICP maintains partnerships with major OEMs and holds ISO certification, indicating a commitment to quality standards. The website is built on WordPress with Elementor, reflecting a modern and professional digital presence with good mobile optimization and clear navigation. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, ICP demonstrates a solid business credibility and moderate technical maturity with room for improvement in security and privacy compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
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

7 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

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

Keep watching icpcorp.com

This scan found 16 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
0
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
58

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

ICP positions itself as a reliable IT solutions provider with a broad service portfolio targeting enterprise and government sectors. Its long-standing market presence and ISO certification provide competitive advantages. The business model focuses on integrated IT services and product supply, supported by partnerships with leading technology vendors. The company’s target customers are large and mid-sized organizations requiring critical IT infrastructure and managed services. ICP’s partnership ecosystem includes major industry players such as Apple, Cisco, Dell, and Microsoft, enhancing its market credibility. Growth indicators include expansion of service offerings like ICP Electric and a Quality Integration Center. The company’s operations reflect a focus on quality, compliance, and customer service.

Security posture

ICP’s website security posture is moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. No visible security or incident response policies are published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. The site does not appear to use vulnerable libraries, but no advanced security mechanisms are evident. Privacy compliance is lacking, with no cookie consent or privacy policy found, which may expose the company to regulatory risks. Overall, ICP should enhance its security framework and privacy practices to align with industry best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Develop and display privacy and cookie policies with a consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve user experience for all visitors.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
ICP
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ICP
Description
ICP provides world-class Information Technology services to clients throughout the United States including Fortune 1000, mid-size commercial firms, and city and state agencies in greater New York. They partner with large global service providers.
Key services
Lifecycle Management, Mobile Managed Services, Data Center & Networking, Cyber & Physical Security, ICP Electric, Application Development
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, jQuery, Swiper.js
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed using WordPress and Elementor.
  2. Content is business-focused with clear service offerings and partner logos.
  3. Contact information is clearly provided in the footer.
  4. No privacy or cookie policies found on the homepage content.
  5. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  6. No forms detected on the homepage; contact is via links to popups or email/phone.
  7. Social media presence limited to LinkedIn.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  9. SSL is enabled but no advanced security headers detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder, supported by jQuery and Swiper.js for interactive elements. The design is responsive and mobile-friendly, with good navigation clarity and professional branding. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected but potential for optimization. The site lacks advanced SEO meta tags beyond basic implementation and does not include analytics or tracking scripts, indicating minimal user tracking. Technical debt appears low, but security and privacy implementations require modernization. Hosting provider details are not explicit, and no CDN or advanced caching mechanisms are identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports business needs but can be improved for security, privacy, and performance.
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 icpcorp.com. 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 icpcorp.com.

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.