Skip to main content

Security report for ife.no

IFE, Institute for Energy Technology · Energy · Norway

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

IFE, Institute for Energy Technology, is a Norwegian research institute specializing in energy and nuclear technology. The organization focuses on research and development, innovation, and managing technology properties, serving researchers, industry partners, and students. The website reflects a medium-sized, established entity with ISO certifications and a clear presence in the energy sector. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern SEO and cookie consent implementations but suffers from slow performance and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security. The security posture is basic with HSTS enabled but missing critical SSL configurations and OCSP stapling. Privacy compliance is strong with GDPR-aligned cookie consent and a comprehensive privacy policy. Contact information and social media presence enhance business credibility. Overall, the site is professional but requires improvements in security and performance to enhance trust and user experience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching ife.no

This scan found 19 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
92
Security headers
25
Email security
50
DNS health
90
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
43
Average
53

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

IFE holds a solid market position as a research institute in energy technology, leveraging partnerships with entities like NORIN and Agilera Pharma. Its business model centers on research services, technology development, and innovation facilitation within Norway. The presence of a subsidiary, IFE Invest AS, indicates diversification. The website targets academic, industrial, and governmental stakeholders, emphasizing collaboration and sustainability. The company benefits from ISO certifications, enhancing its credibility. Growth indicators include active news/events and educational offerings. The partnership ecosystem is visible through external links and social media engagement, supporting its strategic operations.

Security posture

The current security maturity is basic. While HTTPS is intended (HSTS enabled with preload), the absence of a valid SSL certificate critically undermines secure communications. No OCSP stapling or session resumption is configured, limiting SSL performance and security. DNS CAA records are malformed, which could affect certificate issuance policies. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present. The cookie consent mechanism and privacy policy demonstrate good privacy practices. Overall, the site requires urgent SSL remediation and DNS record corrections to improve its security posture and trustworthiness.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and install a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable proper HTTPS and improve security posture.
  2. Correct and properly configure DNS CAA records to enforce certificate issuance policies.
  3. Enable OCSP stapling and session resumption to enhance SSL performance and security.
  4. Publish explicit security and incident response policies, including vulnerability disclosure guidelines.
  5. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and resource sizes for better user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
IFE, Institute for Energy Technology
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO and uses jQuery and embedded Vimeo videos. It employs a cookie consent plugin from Pressidium, indicating managed hosting likely by Pressidium. The site has a large page size (~20MB) and high resource count (330), resulting in slow load times (~19 seconds). Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and ARIA attributes. SEO is well implemented with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. However, the invalid SSL certificate and missing advanced SSL features represent technical risks. The DNS setup includes multiple TXT records for verification and SPF records for email protection, but CAA records are malformed. Overall, the infrastructure is modern but requires SSL and performance 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 ife.no. 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 ife.no.

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.