Skip to main content

Security report for igi.org

International Gemological Institute · Other · N/a

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The International Gemological Institute (IGI) operates as the world’s largest gemological institute, providing certification and education services related to gems and jewelry. The website content focuses on these core services, targeting industry professionals, jewelers, and students. The business model centers on laboratory services and educational offerings in the gemological sector. The website branding is consistent with the organization's identity, though content quality is basic with limited visible detailed information in the provided HTML snippet. From a technical perspective, the website employs common analytics and tracking technologies such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Facebook Pixel, alongside accessibility tools like UserWay and iconography via Font Awesome. However, there is no evidence of advanced frameworks or CMS platforms in the provided data. Performance and mobile optimization appear moderate to basic, with accessibility features present but no explicit SEO or security enhancements detected. Security posture is limited based on the available data, with no visible security headers or explicit security policies. The SSL/TLS configuration could not be verified from the data provided. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies reduces compliance confidence. No contact information or incident response channels are evident, which could impact user trust and regulatory compliance. Overall, the domain WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, which is common for organizations of this nature but reduces transparency. The website is accessible without WAF or blocking mechanisms. The content is safe for general audiences with no adult or questionable material detected. The AI scoring reflects moderate business credibility but lower technical and privacy compliance scores, resulting in an overall average rating.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 100 · Medium
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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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. 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching igi.org

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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
75
Security headers
35
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
72

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

IGI holds a strong market position as a leading gemological institute with a global footprint. Its competitive advantage lies in its scale and reputation in gem certification and education. The business model is service-oriented, generating revenue through laboratory certifications and educational programs. Target customers include jewelers, gem buyers, and students seeking gemological expertise. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. Growth indicators and subsidiary relationships are not discernible from the HTML content. Strategic observations suggest a need for enhanced digital transparency and compliance to strengthen market trust.

Security posture

The current security maturity level appears basic, with no visible security headers or policies and limited compliance indicators. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests gaps in GDPR and related data protection compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content, but the lack of incident response information and security best practices is a concern. The organization should prioritize implementing comprehensive security headers, transparent privacy policies, and incident response contacts to improve security culture and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer support and incident response.
  4. Establish and disclose a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Conduct a technical audit to verify SSL/TLS configuration and improve website performance and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
International Gemological Institute
Description
The World’s Largest Gemological Institute specializing in gemological services and education.
Key services
Gemological certification, Gem education, Laboratory services
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, UserWay Accessibility Widget, Font Awesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
good
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided HTML
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML snippet
  4. Website uses common analytics and tracking tools
  5. No security headers or explicit security policies detected
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet
  7. Website content is focused on gemological services and education
  8. No adult or questionable content detected
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses standard web technologies including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, UserWay accessibility widget, and Font Awesome icons. There is no evidence of a specific CMS or advanced frameworks in the provided HTML snippet. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO optimization is minimal with limited meta tags and no structured data detected. The technical debt appears moderate due to missing security and privacy implementations. Modernization opportunities include adopting a CMS for better content management, enhancing SEO, and improving security configurations.
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 igi.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 igi.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.