Skip to main content

Security report for imperial.ac.uk

Imperial College London · Education · United Kingdom

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Imperial College London is a globally recognized higher education institution specializing in science, technology, engineering, medicine, and business. It holds a prestigious market position as a top-ranked university in the UK, Europe, and worldwide, offering a broad range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses alongside cutting-edge research and innovation. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and strong branding consistent with its reputation. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and GSAP, integrates multiple analytics and tracking services including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and LinkedIn Insight, and uses a TerminalFour CMS platform. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with appropriate meta tags and structured data. Consent management is implemented via OneTrust, indicating attention to privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses standard security headers, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly available, representing an area for improvement. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis, but the website's professional presentation and institutional branding strongly support legitimacy. Overall, the website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, security, and compliance suitable for a leading educational institution. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security and incident response policies, establishing a vulnerability disclosure program, and providing direct security contact information to enhance trust and transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 imperial.ac.uk

This scan found 17 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
72
Security headers
85
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
81

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.

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate imperial.ac.uk and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
2
Registered
2
Resolving
2
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-06-25

Masked preview

  • im••••••••.ukLowvarious
  • im••••••.ukLowvarious

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of imperial.ac.uk with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Imperial College London operates as a large, essential entity in the education sector, targeting students, researchers, academics, and business collaborators globally. Its competitive advantages include top-tier rankings, award-winning teaching excellence, and a strong research portfolio. The business model centers on delivering education and research services, supported by a global network and partnerships. Revenue streams likely include tuition fees, research grants, and philanthropic giving. The website indicates active engagement with prospective students and stakeholders through course finders, news, events, and outreach programs. The institution maintains a consistent brand and leverages digital tools for marketing and analytics, reflecting a mature operational ecosystem.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of security headers, and integration of consent management tools. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of publicly available security policies, incident response procedures, and vulnerability disclosure channels suggests room for maturity improvement. The use of third-party analytics and tracking services is balanced with privacy compliance mechanisms. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by formalizing and publishing security governance documents and providing clear security contact points.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file.
  3. Provide direct contact information for security incidents and data protection inquiries.
  4. Review and document data retention policies for analytics and tracking data.
  5. Enhance transparency around third-party services and their privacy impact.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Imperial College London
Description
Imperial College London is a world-leading university for science, technology, engineering, medicine and business (STEMB). Across London campuses and international network, it uses science to tackle global challenges.
Key services
Undergraduate and postgraduate education, Research and innovation, Public engagement and events, Business collaboration
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3, GSAP 3.10.4, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Sentry
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • Consent management via OneTrust
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, LinkedIn Insight, Sentry
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
OneTrust Consent Management
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 no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is not available or not provided by the registry.
  3. Strong branding and trust signals consistent with a top-tier university.
  4. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent management.
  5. Use of modern analytics and tracking tools with consent.
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in main HTML; contact likely via forms or dedicated pages.
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published on main site.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  9. Excellent website design, navigation, and content quality.
  10. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including jQuery, GSAP, and Google Tag Manager, hosted on a TerminalFour CMS platform. It uses multiple analytics and tracking tools with consent management via OneTrust. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. No deprecated or vulnerable libraries were detected. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable digital presence appropriate for a large educational institution.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 44/100High27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with imperial.ac.uk. 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 imperial.ac.uk.

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.