Skip to main content

Security report for lilly.com

Eli Lilly and Company · Healthcare · United States

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Eli Lilly and Company is a large, established pharmaceutical enterprise specializing in healthcare products and services. The domain lilly.com is consistent with the company's identity and history, reflecting a mature business with a global presence. However, the website content is currently inaccessible due to a Cloudflare security challenge page, which blocks direct content analysis. The technical infrastructure shows use of Cloudflare as a security and hosting provider, but the SSL/TLS configuration is critically lacking with no valid certificate or HTTPS enabled. Security headers are present but insufficient without proper encryption. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are detectable in the accessible content, and no contact information or forms are visible. The DNS and email security configurations (SPF, DMARC) are well implemented, indicating good email security practices. Overall, the website's security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS and blocked content, limiting user trust and accessibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

  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 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 lilly.com

This scan found 15 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
0
Security headers
55
Email security
50
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
48

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

The domain and WHOIS data confirm that lilly.com is legitimately owned by Eli Lilly and Company, a major player in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sector. The business model focuses on pharmaceutical manufacturing and healthcare solutions targeting healthcare professionals, patients, and partners. The company operates at an enterprise scale with a long history dating back to 1876. The website appears to be protected behind a Cloudflare WAF, which may be part of a broader security strategy. However, the lack of accessible content and policies limits transparency and user engagement. No external partner or subsidiary domains were identified from the accessible data. The company maintains strong email security through SPF and DMARC records, supporting secure communications.

Security posture

The security posture is currently weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical issue for any modern website. While several security headers are implemented, they cannot compensate for the lack of encryption. The Cloudflare WAF provides a layer of protection but also blocks content access, which impacts usability and analysis. No vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE were detected, but the lack of TLS protocols and HSTS is concerning. Email security is robust with a strict DMARC policy set to reject. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available on the accessible site content. Overall, the site requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS deployment and transparency of security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable legacy protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Provide clear and accessible privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies on the website.
  5. Improve website accessibility by reducing WAF blocking for legitimate users and enabling JavaScript and cookies without blocking content.
  6. Publish security and incident response policies including contact channels for abuse or security issues.
  7. Enhance website content quality and navigation to improve user experience and trust.
  8. Regularly audit and update security headers and configurations to align with best practices.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted behind Cloudflare, which provides CDN and security services. DNS records are well configured with multiple A records and robust SPF and DMARC email authentication policies. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is critically deficient with no valid certificate and no TLS protocols enabled, resulting in no HTTPS support. The site content is minimal and blocked by a Cloudflare challenge page requiring JavaScript and cookies, preventing full content analysis. No CMS or frameworks are detectable from the accessible content. Performance metrics are unavailable due to blocked content. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features. Overall, the technical infrastructure shows a mix of strong DNS/email security but poor web security and content delivery practices.
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 lilly.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 lilly.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.