Skip to main content

Security report for leo-pharma.com

LEO Pharma A/S · Healthcare · Denmark

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LEO Pharma A/S is a well-established healthcare company specializing in dermatology and related medical fields, with a history dating back to 1908. The company is headquartered in Denmark and majority owned by the LEO Foundation. Their website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content focused on their business areas, including research, partnerships, and patient care. The site targets patients, healthcare professionals, partners, and potential employees, offering detailed information and resources. Technically, the website employs modern technologies such as React, ASP.NET, and Sitecore CMS, hosted on Microsoft Azure. It integrates analytics and marketing tools like Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and CookieInformation for consent management, demonstrating a good level of digital maturity. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, providing a positive user experience. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and uses secure session cookies. While explicit security headers are not fully visible in the HTML, the overall posture is strong with no exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities detected. The cookie consent mechanism complies with GDPR, and privacy policies are comprehensive and transparent. Overall, LEO Pharma's website presents a professional, trustworthy, and compliant digital front that supports its business objectives and regulatory requirements effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
63/ 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

5 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 leo-pharma.com

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
63
Average
57

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

LEO Pharma holds a strong market position in the healthcare sector, particularly in medical dermatology. Their business model revolves around pharmaceutical product development, research, and strategic partnerships. The company demonstrates growth through recent news updates and financial reporting. Their partnership ecosystem includes collaborations with technology providers like Sitecore and marketing platforms such as LinkedIn and Google. The website content and structure indicate a focus on transparency, compliance, and stakeholder engagement, supporting their reputation and operational goals.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and secure cookie practices. The presence of a detailed cookie consent banner and privacy policy indicates compliance with data protection regulations. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were found in the HTML content. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not clearly visible and should be verified server-side. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly detailed, suggesting an area for improvement in transparency and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve incident response transparency.
  3. Enhance visibility of security and incident response contact channels on the website.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Maintain and update cookie consent mechanisms to comply with evolving privacy regulations and improve user trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
LEO Pharma A/S
Registration number
56759514
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LEO Pharma A/S
Description
LEO Pharma is a healthcare company specializing in dermatology and other areas of care, with a rich legacy since 1908, headquartered in Denmark and majority owned by the LEO Foundation. They focus on advancing the standard of care for people with skin conditions through research, development, and strategic partnerships.
Key services
Medical dermatology products, Research and development, Strategic partnerships and alliances, Patient support programs
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Microsoft ASP.NET, Microsoft Azure, Sitecore CMS, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, CookieInformation Consent Management
Frameworks
React, ASP.NET
Platforms
Microsoft Azure
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with opt-in/out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure session cookies (ASP.NET_SessionId)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Sitecore Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
LinkedIn
Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
CookieInformation Consent Management
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy mechanisms implemented.
  2. Strong branding and consistent corporate identity.
  3. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (Sitecore, React).
  4. Clear contact and corporate information provided.
  5. No signs of blocking or WAF interference.
  6. Good integration of analytics and marketing tools with user consent.
  7. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including React for frontend rendering, ASP.NET for backend services, and Sitecore as the CMS platform, hosted on Microsoft Azure. It uses Google Tag Manager and analytics services for data collection and marketing. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by rich media content and third-party integrations. Technical debt appears low, but continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies and security headers is recommended to maintain robustness.
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 leo-pharma.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 leo-pharma.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.