Skip to main content

Security report for ioppublishing.org

IOP Publishing · Education · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

IOP Publishing is a well-established society-owned scientific publisher specializing in physics and related scientific disciplines. The company operates a portfolio of over 100 open access and hybrid journals, serving the global scientific community. Their business model focuses on providing impactful scientific content with all profits reinvested for public and scientific good. The website reflects a professional and authoritative presence consistent with their market position. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and analytics tools including Yoast SEO, Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Crazy Egg. Hosting is provided by Amazon Web Services, and the domain is managed via Amazon Registrar, Inc. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and performance, with a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism ensuring GDPR compliance. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and implements several security headers. The domain status clientTransferProhibited adds protection against unauthorized transfers. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no explicit security or incident response policies are published on the site. The use of multiple third-party scripts requires ongoing vigilance to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and compliant with privacy regulations. The risk profile is low, with no critical vulnerabilities detected. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing security and incident response policies, and maintaining regular audits of third-party components.

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

3 findings 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
    • 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching ioppublishing.org

This scan found 16 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
57
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
79

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

IOP Publishing holds a strong market position as a society-owned scientific publisher with a focus on physics. Their competitive advantage lies in their extensive portfolio of open access and hybrid journals and their reinvestment of profits into scientific advancement. The business model is subscription and open access based, targeting researchers, academics, and scientific institutions worldwide. The company benefits from partnerships with major analytics and marketing platforms to optimize user engagement and content delivery. Growth indicators include a long domain history and consistent branding. The partnership ecosystem includes major analytics providers and consent management platforms, supporting compliance and marketing efforts.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is good, with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented. The domain registration status and hosting provider are reputable. The site uses a consent management platform to comply with GDPR, indicating a mature privacy posture. However, the absence of DNSSEC and lack of published security policies or incident response contacts represent gaps. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analysis. The use of multiple third-party scripts necessitates continuous monitoring. Overall, the security posture supports business continuity and regulatory compliance but can be improved with additional transparency and DNS security enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Implement and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing clear contact channels for security incidents and data protection inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
IOP Publishing
Description
IOP Publishing is a society-owned scientific publisher, providing impact, recognition and value for the scientific community. As the publishing arm of the Institute of Physics, 100% of their profit goes towards public and scientific good. They offer a diverse product portfolio of over 100 open access and hybrid journals.
Key services
Scientific journal publishing, Open access and hybrid journals, Scientific content dissemination
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, jQuery, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Cloudflare (DNS and security), CookieYes Consent Management, Hotjar, Crazy Egg, Amazon Web Services
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • Use of Cloudflare DNS and bot management
  • Consent management for GDPR compliance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Crazy Egg, CNZZ Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick, Google Ads Service
Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Crazy Egg
Marketing tools
Pardot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on homepage
  4. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  5. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools
  6. No signs of suspicious or malicious content
  7. Good SEO and accessibility practices observed
  8. Domain is well-established and consistent with business profile
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform with a well-maintained tech stack including Yoast SEO for search optimization, Google Analytics and Tag Manager for analytics, and Hotjar and Crazy Egg for user behavior tracking. Hosting is via Amazon Web Services, ensuring scalability and reliability. The site uses a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism powered by CookieYes, supporting GDPR compliance. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. Technical debt appears low, but enabling DNSSEC and improving security header completeness would strengthen the infrastructure. The site is well-structured with valid HTML and CSS, supporting SEO and user experience.
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. 62/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ioppublishing.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 ioppublishing.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.