Skip to main content

Security report for idemia.com

IDEMIA · Technology · France

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

IDEMIA is a global leader in biometrics and cryptography, providing advanced technology solutions that enable secure payments, identity verification, connectivity, and public safety. The company serves governments, enterprises, and financial institutions worldwide, positioning itself as a trusted partner with a strong market presence and extensive customer references. The website reflects a mature digital infrastructure with modern JavaScript libraries, SEO best practices, and a professional design that supports a positive user experience. However, the current lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS implementation significantly impacts the security posture, exposing the site to potential risks. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, and a Data Protection Officer contact is provided, indicating good privacy compliance. Overall, the site demonstrates high business credibility but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS security to align with best practices and user trust expectations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

4 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 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

  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

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

Keep watching idemia.com

This scan found 14 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
80
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
56

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

IDEMIA operates in the technology sector with a focus on biometrics, cryptography, and identity solutions. Its business model revolves around providing mission-critical technologies to governments and enterprises, including payment systems, access control, and public safety solutions. The company leverages partnerships and subsidiaries to extend its global reach, with a strong emphasis on innovation and R&D investment. The website content and references highlight a well-established brand with a large enterprise size and a consistent, professional online presence. The target audience includes government agencies, financial institutions, and IoT sectors, reflecting a diversified customer base. Strategic partnerships with companies like Microsoft and Telefónica enhance its market position and credibility.

Security posture

The website employs several security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-XSS-Protection, and Strict-Transport-Security, demonstrating awareness of security best practices. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and the lack of enabled TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that undermine the overall security posture. The site does not implement OCSP stapling or session resumption, which could improve performance and security. No explicit security policy or incident response information is publicly available, and there is no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found. The presence of a Data Protection Officer contact email indicates some level of compliance with data protection regulations. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues is recommended to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to enhance security and performance.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users.
  5. Create and maintain a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  6. Continue to maintain and update privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms.
  7. Consider adding direct contact information such as company phone numbers and physical addresses for enhanced transparency.
  8. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerable components are used.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS and uses a variety of modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery, Slick Carousel, AOS for animations, and Easy Fancybox for media display. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for tracking and marketing purposes. The site includes multilingual support via WPML and uses CDN services such as jsDelivr and Cloudflare. The technical implementation shows good SEO practices with structured data (JSON-LD), Open Graph tags, and meta descriptions. Mobile optimization is good, and accessibility is basic but present. Performance data is not available, but the use of caching (Redis Object Cache) suggests some optimization efforts. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but the IP address and headers suggest a professionally managed environment. Overall, the technical stack is modern and well-maintained but requires urgent SSL/TLS improvements.
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 idemia.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 idemia.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.