Skip to main content

Security report for lilo.org

Lilo · Technology · France

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Lilo is a French search engine focused on financing social and environmental projects through user searches while ensuring strong privacy protections. It operates a business model that redistributes 80% of its profits to projects chosen by users, positioning itself as a socially responsible alternative to mainstream search engines. The website is well-designed, mobile-optimized, and uses modern technologies including WordPress, React, and Microsoft Bing integration. Privacy policies and terms of service are comprehensive and accessible, though explicit cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers in place, but no public security policy or incident response information is found. WHOIS data is unavailable, limiting domain trust verification, but the website's active social presence and partnerships support legitimacy.

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

6 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 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';…

  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 lilo.org

This scan found 21 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
65
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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

Lilo occupies a niche market as a French solidarity-focused search engine, leveraging partnerships with Microsoft Bing for search results. Its competitive advantage lies in combining user privacy with social impact funding. Revenue is generated from sponsored links and ads, with a large portion redistributed to social/environmental projects. The target audience includes privacy-conscious internet users and socially responsible individuals. The company maintains active engagement through social media and mobile apps. Growth potential exists in expanding user base and project partnerships. The lack of transparent domain registration data is a minor concern but does not detract from operational credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, multiple security headers, and privacy-focused data handling. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency. No direct security contact emails were found. The site uses Microsoft Clarity for analytics, which is privacy-conscious but still involves user tracking. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved by publishing formal security documentation and implementing cookie consent mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a clear cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  2. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan accessible from the website.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Provide direct security contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Regularly audit and update all CMS components and third-party libraries to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lilo
Description
Lilo is a French search engine that finances social and environmental projects for free through user searches while protecting user privacy.
Key services
Search engine, Project funding via user searches, Privacy protection
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, JavaScript, React, Yoast SEO, Weglot (translation), Microsoft Bing API
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens (implied by WordPress standard)
  • Privacy focused data handling

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO, Weglot
Transparency
good

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 no blocking detected.
  2. Strong focus on social/environmental impact and privacy.
  3. Uses WordPress CMS with modern frontend technologies.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found in HTML.
  5. Privacy policy and terms of service are present and comprehensive.
  6. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  7. WHOIS data is missing or inaccessible, limiting domain trust verification.
  8. Multiple social media profiles and app store links indicate active engagement.
  9. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern frontend using React and Bootstrap frameworks. It integrates Microsoft Bing for search results and uses Weglot for multilingual support. Performance is moderate with compressed CSS and JS assets served via a static host. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and semantic HTML. SEO is enhanced by Yoast SEO plugin and proper meta tags including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Hosting provider details are not explicit. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, supporting a professional user experience with room for performance tuning.
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 lilo.org. 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 lilo.org.

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.