Skip to main content

Security report for innn.fr

Niort Numeric · Technology · France

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website innn.fr represents Niort Numeric's flagship event focused on digital innovation, InsurTech, and risk management, held in Niort, France. It serves as a platform for networking, showcasing startups, and hosting conferences, targeting professionals and decision-makers in the insurance and technology sectors. The site is well-branded, content-rich, and optimized for SEO with structured data and social media integration. Technically, it is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript libraries for UI components and uses OVH as the hosting provider. However, a critical security gap is the absence of a valid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support, which significantly impacts the site's security posture. The site implements cookie consent via Piwik PRO, indicating good privacy compliance practices. Overall, the site is professional and functional but requires urgent security improvements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

11 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching innn.fr

This scan found 24 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
85
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
0
Average
42

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

Niort Numeric positions itself as a key regional player in the innovation and InsurTech event space, leveraging partnerships with notable sponsors such as Stelliant, Darva, and Swiss Re. The business model revolves around event organization, sponsorship, and providing a networking platform for startups and industry leaders. The presence of multiple partners and sponsors indicates a strong ecosystem and potential for growth. The event targets innovation professionals, insurers, and technology companies, focusing on emerging technologies and risk prevention. The company is backed by Niort Agglo, suggesting institutional support. The website content and partner ecosystem reflect a mature approach to market positioning and stakeholder engagement.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS encryption. This exposes users to potential data interception risks. Additionally, the site lacks important security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and DMARC for email protection. While no known vulnerabilities or malware were detected, the absence of these security measures and the invalid SSL certificate represent significant compliance and security gaps. The cookie consent mechanism is properly implemented, showing awareness of privacy regulations. Incident response and security policies are not publicly documented, indicating limited transparency in security governance.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately install and maintain a valid SSL certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance security.
  3. Configure DMARC, SPF, and DKIM DNS records to protect against email spoofing and phishing.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin and modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Splide.js, and Swiper.js for interactive UI components. Hosting is provided by OVH, with DNS and mail services also managed by OVH. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 5.8 seconds and a page size of about 400 KB. The site is mobile responsive and includes accessibility features, although these could be improved. SEO is well implemented with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. However, the lack of HTTPS and security headers introduces technical risks that could impact user trust and compliance.
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 innn.fr. 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 innn.fr.

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.