Skip to main content

Security report for iu.edu

Indiana University · Education · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Indiana University is a large, established public educational institution in the United States offering over 930 academic programs across nine campuses. The university emphasizes world-class research, global impact, and a comprehensive student experience. The website reflects a mature digital presence with a professional design, clear navigation, and rich content targeting prospective and current students, researchers, and alumni. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including Rivet UI framework, jQuery, and Google Tag Manager, with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though explicit security headers and cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. Overall, the domain registration and website content are consistent and legitimate, supporting a high trust level.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

4 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 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 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

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

Keep watching iu.edu

This scan found 20 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
100
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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 iu.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
28,764
Employees
173
Customers
17,198
Third parties
11,393
Weak passwords
13%

Latest record dated 2026-06-14 · 307 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 iu.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –idp.login.iu.edu2026-06-14
  • –cas.iu.edu2026-06-13
  • –idp.login.iu.edu2026-06-13
  • –access-clarivate-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu2026-06-12
  • –signin-westacademic-com.proxy.mckinneylaw.uits.iu.edu2026-06-11

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

Indiana University holds a strong market position as a top-tier research university with multiple R1 campuses, serving a large student body and extensive alumni network. Its business model focuses on education, research, and community engagement. The university leverages partnerships and global outreach to enhance its impact. The website supports these goals by providing detailed academic, admissions, financial aid, and campus life information. The presence of official social media channels and mobile app offerings indicate a commitment to digital engagement and student services.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and no exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, which could enhance transparency and trust. The lack of a cookie consent mechanism despite use of tracking scripts suggests partial GDPR compliance. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and publishing relevant policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility by including verified company phone numbers and official contact emails on the website.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Indiana University
Description
Discover your future at Indiana University! With 930+ programs, world-class research, and a global impact, IU empowers you to create a better tomorrow.
Key services
Academic programs, Admissions, Financial aid, Campus life, Research opportunities, Global partnerships
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery 3.7.1, Rivet UI framework, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Vimeo Player API, JS-Cookie
Frameworks
Rivet Core 2.5.2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for analytics
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. Strong branding and consistent design throughout the site.
  3. Comprehensive academic and institutional information provided.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  5. No signs of suspicious or malicious content.
  6. Social media presence on major platforms is well integrated.
  7. No explicit privacy or security policy pages beyond privacy notice found.
  8. No cookie consent banner detected despite use of tracking scripts.
  9. No visible phone numbers or direct email addresses on homepage; contact via contact page.
  10. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack featuring HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery 3.7.1, and the Rivet UI framework. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and uses Vimeo Player API for media content. The presence of LiveWhale CMS scripts suggests a proprietary or custom content management system. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness and accessibility. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags and structured navigation. Opportunities exist to improve technical security configurations and cookie management.
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 iu.edu. 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 iu.edu.

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.