Skip to main content

Security report for opcfoundation.org

OPC Foundation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The OPC Foundation is a well-established global standards organization specializing in industrial interoperability technologies. Founded in 1997, it supports a large ecosystem of suppliers and products facilitating secure and seamless data exchange across diverse platforms. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, comprehensive content, and clear navigation targeting industrial automation professionals and technology vendors. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern tools such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and analytics platforms like Matomo and Hotjar, ensuring good performance and SEO optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and domain protection, though improvements can be made by enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit security policies. Privacy compliance is strong with visible privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the OPC Foundation website demonstrates high trustworthiness and professionalism, supporting its market leadership in industrial interoperability standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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. 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';…

  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

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching opcfoundation.org

This scan found 22 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
42
Security headers
60
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
71

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 OPC Foundation holds a leading position in the industrial technology sector, providing interoperability standards that enable multi-vendor platform integration. Its business model revolves around membership, certification, and developer support services. The organization targets industrial automation companies, technology developers, and enterprises requiring standardized communication protocols. The website's content and structure indicate a focus on transparency, community engagement through events and working groups, and support for product certification. Partnerships and collaborations are implied through joint working groups and events, though no explicit partner domains were identified. The organization's longevity and extensive product ecosystem underscore its competitive advantage and market influence.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL configuration and domain status protections to prevent unauthorized changes. However, no advanced security headers were detected, and there is no publicly available security policy or incident response contact information. The absence of a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure mechanism limits transparency in security practices. Analytics and tracking tools are used responsibly with consent mechanisms in place, aligning with GDPR requirements. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional security headers, publishing formal security policies, and providing clear incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance
  4. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency
  5. Provide explicit incident response contact channels (e.g., security@ or abuse@ email addresses)
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
OPC Foundation
Description
The OPC Foundation is a global organization focused on industrial interoperability standards, enabling secure and seamless information exchange between diverse platforms and vendors. It supports over 5,200 suppliers with more than 42,000 OPC products used in over 52 million applications worldwide.
Key services
Development and promotion of OPC standards, Certification and testing of OPC products, Hosting interoperability workshops and events, Providing developer tools and documentation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Bootstrap, Slider Revolution, Yoast SEO, Matomo Analytics, Hotjar, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientDeleteProhibited and other domain status flags set
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Content is rich and professionally presented
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  4. No direct company emails or phone numbers publicly listed, contact via form
  5. Use of modern analytics and marketing tools with privacy compliance
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts found
  7. WHOIS data shows privacy protection but domain age and registrar are legitimate
  8. No suspicious or malicious external domains detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using a combination of jQuery, Bootstrap, and Slider Revolution for UI components. SEO is enhanced via the Yoast SEO plugin, and user behavior is tracked using Matomo and Hotjar analytics tools with privacy consent managed by OneTrust. The site demonstrates moderate performance with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Hosting appears to be through GoDaddy, inferred from WHOIS data. Technical debt is minimal, but enabling DNSSEC and improving security headers would reduce risks. The site is well-maintained with regular content updates and professional design, supporting a positive user experience.
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 opcfoundation.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 opcfoundation.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.