Skip to main content

Security report for lexisnexisrisk.com

LexisNexis Risk Solutions · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

87/100

Risk levelLow

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

LexisNexis Risk Solutions operates in the technology sector, providing data and analytics services focused on risk management and fraud prevention. The company is positioned as an enterprise-level provider with a strong market presence in its domain. The analyzed page is a security block page indicating that the user's request was blocked due to potential malicious activity or hotlinking, and does not contain typical business or contact information. The technical infrastructure leverages Cloudflare for DNS and hosting, with a valid SSL certificate issued by GlobalSign. However, the SSL configuration lacks modern TLS protocol support, which is a notable technical shortcoming. Security headers are well implemented, enhancing protection against common web vulnerabilities. The page lacks any privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact or incident response information is present, limiting the ability to assess compliance or support readiness. Overall, the website's security posture is moderate but could be improved by updating TLS protocols and adding comprehensive security and privacy policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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. 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 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 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 lexisnexisrisk.com

This scan found 10 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
97
Security headers
80
Email security
95
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
87

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

LexisNexis Risk Solutions is a key player in the technology sector, specializing in risk and fraud analytics. Their business model is B2B, targeting organizations that require advanced data solutions for risk mitigation. The company likely generates revenue through service subscriptions and data analytics offerings. The absence of detailed business information on the analyzed page suggests this is a security-related block page rather than a primary business page. The company maintains a consistent brand presence and employs strong security headers, indicating a focus on protecting their digital assets. However, the lack of visible privacy or cookie policies on this page may reflect a need for better transparency in user data handling. The DNS and SSL configurations indicate reliance on reputable providers, supporting operational stability. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from this page.

Security posture

The security posture of the analyzed page is moderate, with several strong security headers implemented, including HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection. The SSL certificate is valid and issued by a trusted authority, but the absence of modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) is a significant vulnerability that could expose users to downgrade attacks or weaker cipher suites. No known SSL vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, POODLE, FREAK, or Logjam are detected. The page sets HttpOnly and Secure flags on cookies, enhancing session security. However, the lack of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, as well as absence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, indicates gaps in compliance and transparency. The page is a security block page, which suggests active monitoring and mitigation of malicious activity, but overall security maturity could be improved by updating SSL/TLS configurations and publishing comprehensive security and privacy documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade SSL/TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols
  2. Implement Content-Security-Policy header to mitigate XSS and data injection attacks
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible from all pages
  4. Establish and publicize incident response and vulnerability disclosure procedures
  5. Enhance transparency by providing contact information for security and data protection officers
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted and DNS-managed by Cloudflare, providing robust infrastructure and DDoS protection. The SSL certificate is valid and issued by GlobalSign, but the lack of modern TLS protocol support is a technical deficiency. The page uses embedded base64 fonts and images, which may impact performance and caching efficiency. No external scripts or analytics tools are detected on this page, indicating minimal client-side processing. Performance metrics indicate fast load times, but content is minimal due to the page being a block notice. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no advanced features or ARIA roles detected. SEO optimization is poor, as the page lacks metadata, structured data, and meaningful content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is stable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced user experience features.
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 lexisnexisrisk.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 lexisnexisrisk.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.