Skip to main content

Security report for ipm.com.br

Other · Brazil

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

94/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website ipm.com.br is currently inaccessible due to a security block imposed by the Wordfence plugin, which is a widely used WordPress security solution. The block results in an HTTP 503 response indicating that access from the visitor's area has been temporarily limited for security reasons. Due to this block, no meaningful business content, contact information, or policy documents are accessible for analysis. The site appears to be running on WordPress with Wordfence active, but no further technical or business details can be extracted from the blocked page. From a technical perspective, the site uses WordPress and Wordfence, but no additional information about hosting, performance, or SEO can be determined. The lack of accessible content and metadata severely limits the ability to assess the site's digital maturity or technical infrastructure. Security-wise, the presence of Wordfence indicates an active security posture, but the block prevents evaluation of security headers, SSL configuration, or potential vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is available. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state that prevents comprehensive analysis. This results in a low AI score and unknown status for most compliance and business credibility factors. For a full assessment, access to the unblocked site or additional data sources would be required.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
94/ 100 · Low
GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      No privacy policy link found

      No link to a privacy notice was found on the scanned page (searched in English and the main EU languages). GDPR Art. 12 and 13 require the notice to be easy to find wherever personal data is collected.

      What to do: Link the privacy policy from the footer of every page.

Keep watching ipm.com.br

This scan found 11 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
100
Security headers
85
Email security
95
DNS health
94
Network security
100
Website hygiene
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
94

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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 ipm.com.br, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1,309
Employees
74
Customers
1,060
Third parties
175
Weak passwords
20%

Latest record dated 2026-08-24 · 32 subdomains 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 ipm.com.br.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • ma•••@ipm.com.brmail.ipm.com.br2026-08-24
  • ca•••@ipm.com.brdream.ipm.com.br2026-07-05
  • ra•••@ipm.com.brmail.ipm.com.br2026-06-30
  • er•••@ipm.com.brmail.ipm.com.br2026-06-23
  • ra•••@ipm.com.brqualidade-atendenet56.ipm.com.br2026-06-21

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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

Due to the access block, no business intelligence data such as company name, market position, business model, or target audience could be extracted. The site is identified as Brazilian based on the domain (.br) and language of the block page (Portuguese). The use of Wordfence suggests a concern for security, but no further insights into revenue streams, partnerships, or growth indicators are available.

Security posture

The security posture is partially indicated by the use of Wordfence, a reputable WordPress security plugin. However, the block page prevents analysis of security headers, SSL/TLS configuration, or other best practices. No vulnerabilities or compliance gaps can be identified from the blocked content. Incident response contact channels and security policies are not disclosed. The security score is minimal due to lack of accessible data.

Recommendations

  1. Provide an unblocked version or a public-facing landing page to enable content and compliance analysis.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible without security blocks.
  3. Implement visible contact information and incident response channels for transparency.
  4. Ensure security headers and SSL configurations are properly set and publicly verifiable.
  5. Consider providing a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to improve trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Wordfence detected. The website is blocked by Wordfence security plugin with HTTP 503 response and access limitation message. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Wordfence
Platforms
WordPress

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by Wordfence security plugin.
  2. No business or contact information is accessible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found.
  4. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  5. No external links except to wordfence.com documentation.
  6. No forms except a blocked unlock form for WordPress admins.
  7. No metadata, Open Graph, or structured data present.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  9. Content safety is safe with no adult or explicit content.
  10. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

The site runs on WordPress with the Wordfence security plugin active. No other technologies, frameworks, or hosting details are discernible from the blocked page. The page is minimal and serves only as a security block notice, with no metadata, structured data, or SEO elements. Performance, accessibility, and mobile optimization cannot be assessed. The technical debt or modernization opportunities cannot be evaluated due to lack of content.
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 ipm.com.br. 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 ipm.com.br.

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.