Skip to main content

Security report for imecitf.com

Imec Technology Forum (ITF) · Technology · Belgium

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Imec Technology Forum (ITF) is a globally recognized innovation roadshow that connects stakeholders from technology industries, academia, and government to foster collaboration and showcase breakthroughs in deep-tech. The website presents a professional and well-structured platform highlighting upcoming and past events, emphasizing its role in the global innovation ecosystem. Technically, the site leverages modern frameworks such as React and Next.js, with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers, though explicit security policies and vulnerability disclosures are absent. The lack of WHOIS registration data raises some legitimacy concerns, but the association with the established imec organization mitigates risk. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally maintained, serving its target audience effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 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 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching imecitf.com

This scan found 22 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
71

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention imecitf.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
17
Employees
0
Customers
17
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
41%

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 imecitf.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The ITF operates as an event organizer within the technology sector, focusing on deep-tech innovation forums worldwide. Its competitive advantage lies in its extensive network of over 600 industry partners and a global academic network, positioning it as a central hub for cross-sector collaboration. Revenue likely derives from event sponsorships, partnerships, and registrations. The target customers include technology companies, researchers, government bodies, and investors. The website's content and event listings indicate active engagement and growth, supported by a strong brand identity linked to imec. Strategic partnerships with imec and other entities enhance its market presence and credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy, incident response information, or vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and preparedness visibility. Contact information for security incidents is not provided, which could hinder incident reporting and response. Compliance with privacy regulations appears robust, but improvements in security communication and incident readiness are recommended to enhance trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Add clear contact information for security and privacy concerns to facilitate communication.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration details to ensure domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Maintain and enhance privacy compliance measures, including clear data retention policies.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Imec Technology Forum (ITF)
Description
Imec Technology Forum (ITF) is a worldwide innovation roadshow aiming to connect, inform and inspire stakeholders from tech and tech-enabled industries, governments, and academia to foster collaboration and fuel global innovation.
Key services
Organizing technology forums and conferences, Facilitating cross-sector collaboration, Showcasing technological breakthroughs
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Google Tag Manager, CookieHub
Frameworks
React, Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
CookieHub
Marketing tools
CookieHub
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual and requires further verification.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie policy presence with consent mechanism.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the site.
  5. Multiple upcoming and past event listings indicate active business operations.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  7. No visible security or vulnerability disclosure information.
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including React and Next.js, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. It uses Google Tag Manager and CookieHub for analytics and cookie management, indicating a focus on privacy compliance and marketing effectiveness. The CMS identified is Alinea 1.4.1, which supports structured content management. Performance is moderate with good SEO and accessibility features. No critical technical debt or vulnerabilities were observed in the frontend code. Hosting provider details are not explicit, but HTTPS and security headers suggest a secure hosting environment. Opportunities exist to enhance technical transparency by publishing security and privacy documentation.
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 imecitf.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 imecitf.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.