Skip to main content

Security report for lefigaro.fr

Le Figaro · Media

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website demonstrates a generally strong security posture with no critical or high-level issues detected, and full scores in SSL/TLS and network security modules. However, medium-level concerns exist primarily around compliance and foundational security controls, including the absence of key security headers, non-enforcement of DMARC policies, and lack of DNSSEC implementation. These gaps expose the organization to risks such as data interception, phishing attacks, and potential regulatory non-compliance under GDPR and NIS2 frameworks. While email security is good overall, the failure to enforce DMARC reduces protection against email spoofing. Addressing these medium-level issues will enhance both security resilience and regulatory compliance, reducing potential business risks and reputational damage. Low-level issues such as complex SPF records and missing CAA records should be resolved to further strengthen the email and DNS infrastructure. In summary, the website is secure but requires targeted improvements in security headers, DNS security, email authentication, and regulatory adherence to maintain a robust defense posture and compliance standing.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of lefigaro.fr. View the latest report
3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

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

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Medium

      DMARC not enforcing

      DMARC policy is set to "none"

      What to do: Gradually move to "quarantine" then "reject" policy

  2. DNS health

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

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching lefigaro.fr

This scan found 5 issues across 3 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
100
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
93
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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.

Technical notes

Notes

Key technical findings include failure to implement critical security headers, which increases vulnerability to cross-site scripting, clickjacking, and man-in-the-middle attacks. The DMARC record exists but is not enforcing, allowing spoofed emails to bypass filtering, increasing phishing risks. DNSSEC is not enabled, leaving DNS queries vulnerable to spoofing and cache poisoning, potentially redirecting users to malicious sites. GDPR and NIS2 analyses failed, indicating gaps in privacy and cybersecurity regulatory compliance which could lead to legal and financial penalties. Low-level issues such as complex SPF records and missing CAA records, while less immediately critical, weaken email validation and certificate issuance security, respectively.
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. 68/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with lefigaro.fr. 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 lefigaro.fr.

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.