IEM · Government · United States
Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.
IEM is a well-established company specializing in emergency management, disaster recovery, and resilience services primarily for government and public sector clients. With over 40 years of experience, IEM offers a broad range of capabilities including digital citizen services, public health modeling, energy security planning, and law enforcement support. The company positions itself as a trusted partner to governments and businesses worldwide, aiming to build a safer and more resilient world. The website reflects this positioning with comprehensive service descriptions and a professional digital presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Themify Ultra theme and incorporates multiple plugins for enhanced functionality such as sliders, forms, cookie consent, and analytics. The site is mobile optimized and employs modern web technologies including Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking and performance insights. SEO practices are evident through structured data and meta tags, contributing to good search engine visibility. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place. However, it lacks visible security headers and does not publish a security policy or vulnerability disclosure, which are areas for improvement. The cookie consent mechanism is robust, offering users detailed control over cookie categories, aligning with GDPR requirements. No critical vulnerabilities or blocking mechanisms were detected, indicating a stable security posture. Overall, IEM's website demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure supporting its business goals, with room to enhance privacy and security transparency. Strategic recommendations include publishing a privacy policy, implementing security headers, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure process to further strengthen trust and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information
What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 18 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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention iem.com, from OffSeq Breach.
3 subdomains affected
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for iem.com.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with iem.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review iem.com.