Skip to main content

Security report for interaction-design.org

Interaction Design Foundation · Education · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Interaction Design Foundation operates a leading global online education platform specializing in UX design courses. Founded in 2002, it offers a comprehensive curriculum of 38 courses ranging from beginner to advanced levels, taught by industry experts. The platform also fosters a large UX community with local meetups worldwide, supporting career advancement through recognized certificates. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript frameworks, CDN hosting, and integrates analytics and error tracking tools, ensuring a fast, mobile-optimized, and accessible user experience. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and CSRF protections, although explicit security policies and incident response details are not publicly disclosed. Privacy compliance is robust, featuring comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. Overall, the platform demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and business credibility, supported by positive user reviews and a strong social media presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

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 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. 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
    • High

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 26 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates
    • 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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching interaction-design.org

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
42
Security headers
65
Email security
100
DNS health
55
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
83
Average
64

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

The Interaction Design Foundation holds a dominant market position as the largest online UX design education provider. Its subscription-based business model, supplemented by corporate memberships, targets UX learners and companies seeking scalable training solutions. The platform's extensive course offerings, industry-recognized certificates, and global community engagement provide competitive advantages. Growth indicators include a large member base and active social media followings. The company maintains partnerships with global corporations for corporate training but does not publicly disclose subsidiaries or parent companies. Strategic observations highlight a mission-driven approach to affordable design education and a strong emphasis on community building.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and CSRF token implementation. The use of third-party error tracking and analytics is managed with user consent via a cookie banner, indicating privacy awareness. However, the absence of publicly available security policies, incident response plans, vulnerability disclosure programs, and data protection officer contacts suggests areas for improvement in transparency and compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The platform appears compliant with GDPR requirements based on privacy policy content and consent mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response information to enhance transparency and user trust.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide contact details for a Data Protection Officer or privacy contact to comply with GDPR best practices.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance documentation of data retention policies and user data handling practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Interaction Design Foundation
Description
The Interaction Design Foundation is the biggest online design school globally, founded in 2002. They offer 38 UX design courses from beginner to advanced levels, taught by industry experts, with industry-recognized certificates. They also provide a global UX community with local meetups in 482 cities worldwide.
Key services
Online UX design courses, Industry-recognized certificates, UX community and local meetups, Corporate training memberships
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Bugsnag, Google Tag Manager, Cloudfront CDN, Google Fonts
Frameworks
htmx
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF token present in scripts
  • Bug tracking with Bugsnag
  • Consent banner for cookies and privacy

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Bugsnag
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional, large-scale online UX education platform.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and includes multiple trust signals.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity detected.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection.
  5. Strong social media presence and positive user reviews.
  6. Good privacy and cookie policy implementation with consent mechanisms.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information publicly available.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including JavaScript, htmx framework, and is hosted on Amazon Cloudfront CDN, ensuring fast content delivery. Integration with Google Tag Manager and Bugsnag supports analytics and error monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Performance is fast with preconnect hints and resource preloading. Technical risks are minimal, but continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies is recommended to avoid technical debt and security issues.
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 interaction-design.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 interaction-design.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.