Skip to main content

Security report for mines-plus.org

Mines Plus · Education · France

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Network security.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Mines Plus is an alumni association website serving graduates of the Mines d'Albi, Alès, and Douai engineering schools in France. It offers networking, career services, event information, and regional group management for its members. The site targets alumni, students, and recruiters connected to these institutions. Technically, the website uses a custom CMS with a PHP/Apache backend and front-end technologies including jQuery, Bootstrap, and various JavaScript libraries. It integrates cookie consent management and social login options. However, the website suffers from a critical security issue: the SSL certificate is invalid or missing, and no TLS protocols are enabled, which severely impacts secure HTTPS access. Security headers are well implemented, but the lack of proper SSL/TLS undermines overall security. Privacy compliance is addressed with a cookie policy and consent mechanism, but no explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages are clearly found. Contact information is limited to an email address in the footer and a contact page link, with no phone numbers or physical addresses visible. Overall, the site is functional and professionally designed but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

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.

    • 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching mines-plus.org

This scan found 13 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
50
Security headers
85
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
25
Average
53

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 website operates as a membership-based alumni association, providing value through networking, career opportunities, and event organization. Its market position is niche, focusing on specific French engineering schools. The business model relies on membership fees and services for alumni and recruiters. The presence of partner domains indicates a collaborative ecosystem with related institutions. The site shows moderate digital maturity with modern front-end technologies and marketing tools but lacks advanced security infrastructure. Growth potential exists through enhanced digital services and improved security posture.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate but compromised by the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, which are critical for secure communications. The site implements several security headers and a strict content security policy, which are positive indicators. Cookie security is enhanced with HttpOnly and Secure flags, and user authentication includes social login options. However, the lack of HTTPS enforcement and modern TLS support exposes users to potential interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. No incident response or security policy information is found, indicating limited transparency in security governance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and install a valid SSL/TLS certificate immediately to enable secure HTTPS connections.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  4. Publish clear privacy policy, terms of service, and security policy pages to enhance compliance and transparency.
  5. Add explicit incident response contact information and consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy.
  6. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain best practices.
  7. Consider adding verified phone contact and physical address information to improve trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an Apache server with PHP backend, using a custom or unknown CMS. Front-end technologies include jQuery, Bootstrap, TinyMCE, Select2, and LABjs. Cookie consent is managed by tarteaucitron, and hCaptcha is used for bot protection on forms. The site loads multiple Google Fonts and integrates social login via RPXNow. Performance data is unavailable, but the site appears moderately optimized with responsive design and structured navigation. The lack of valid SSL and disabled TLS protocols represent significant technical debt and security risk. The DNS setup is standard with SPF records for email. No DNSSEC or CAA records are present. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires modernization in security and performance monitoring.
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 mines-plus.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 mines-plus.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.