Skip to main content

Security report for ipaglobal.com

Independent Project Analysis · Energy · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Independent Project Analysis (IPA) is a specialized consulting and research organization focused on capital projects and project systems worldwide. Founded in 1987, IPA provides benchmarking, risk analysis, sustainability consulting, and training services to industrial clients, primarily in the energy and infrastructure sectors. The company leverages a proprietary database of over 24,000 projects to deliver data-driven insights and improve capital project performance. Their market position is strong as a leader in capital project intelligence, supported by a professional website and comprehensive service offerings. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using modern frameworks like Bootstrap and integrates Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and reCAPTCHA for analytics and security. The site is mobile optimized and demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices. However, some security headers are missing, and no cookie consent mechanism was detected, which could impact privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and secure forms with CAPTCHA, but lacks explicit security policies and incident response information. The WHOIS data for the domain is missing, which raises some concerns about domain registration transparency, though the website content and branding strongly support legitimacy. Overall, IPA's website is professional and content-rich, with moderate technical and security maturity. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy compliance, and domain registration transparency are recommended to enhance trust and compliance.

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

2 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.

    • 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

  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

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

Keep watching ipaglobal.com

This scan found 19 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
62
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

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 ipaglobal.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2
Employees
0
Customers
1
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
50%

1 subdomain 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 ipaglobal.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

IPA operates in the energy and infrastructure sectors, targeting industrial project owners and managers seeking to optimize capital project outcomes. Their competitive advantage lies in their extensive benchmarking database and empirical research approach. Revenue streams likely include consulting fees, training events, membership consortia, and sales of research products. The company demonstrates growth through regular events and updated publications. Their partnership ecosystem includes industry consortia and clients worldwide. IPA maintains a consistent brand and professional online presence, reinforcing their market credibility.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms to prevent abuse. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), X-Frame-Options, and HSTS reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but lacking cookie consent mechanisms. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, indicating potential gaps in security transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be improved with enhanced headers, explicit policies, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options to strengthen site security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish explicit security policy and incident response information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration details to ensure consistency and legitimacy.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Independent Project Analysis
Description
IPA examines the functioning of capital projects and project systems around the world to help customers create and use capital assets more efficiently. They provide benchmarking, research, and consulting services focused on capital projects.
Key services
Capital Project System Improvement, Project Risk Analysis & Benchmarking, Carbon Management & Sustainability, Cost Engineering, Organizations & Teams consulting, Site & Sustaining Capital, Research, Consortia Membership, Consulting & Solutions Implementation, Training & Workshops
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, jQuery, Bootstrap, FontAwesome, Gravity Forms
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, MonsterInsights
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
MonsterInsights
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content rich.
  2. No WHOIS data available, indicating possible privacy protection or recent domain registration.
  3. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found.
  4. Contact information is clearly presented with phone, email, and contact form.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  6. No visible security headers detected in provided data.
  7. Privacy policy is present and linked.
  8. No terms of service or security policy pages explicitly found.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap framework, leveraging jQuery and FontAwesome for UI components. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking and uses Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site is mobile responsive and well-structured with proper meta tags and JSON-LD structured data for SEO. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected. Opportunities exist to improve performance by optimizing third-party scripts and implementing advanced caching or CDN strategies.
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 ipaglobal.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 ipaglobal.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.