Skip to main content

Security report for orcid.org

orcid · Technology · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

ORCID is a well-established non-profit organization founded in 2009, providing persistent digital identifiers for researchers to uniquely associate their work and affiliations. The website reflects a professional and technology-focused platform targeting researchers, academic institutions, publishers, and funders globally. The business model centers on offering digital identity services that enhance research visibility and impact. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, New Relic for performance monitoring, and Cloudflare for DNS services. The site is well-optimized for performance and mobile use, with consistent branding and good user experience. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses domain status protections but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is trustworthy and credible but could improve transparency and security practices.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of orcid.org. View the latest report

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

3 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

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

Keep watching orcid.org

This scan found 17 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
90
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
77

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention orcid.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
248,195
Employees
10
Customers
248,147
Third parties
38
Weak passwords
8%

Latest record dated 2026-06-12 · 16 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for orcid.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –orcid.org2026-06-12
  • –orcid.org2026-05-20
  • –orcid.org2026-03-15
  • –orcid.org2025-10-31
  • –orcid.org2025-08-18

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

ORCID holds a strong market position as a global provider of researcher identifiers, serving a niche but essential segment in academic and research communities. Its competitive advantage lies in its persistent digital identifier system integrated into research workflows worldwide. The organization operates as a medium-sized non-profit entity based in the US, with no parent or subsidiary companies indicated. The website content and technical infrastructure suggest a mature digital presence with strategic use of analytics and monitoring tools. Partnerships or related domains were not identified in the provided data. The absence of explicit contact information and policies may limit user trust and engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections in place. However, the lack of DNSSEC, security headers, and published security policies or incident response contacts indicates gaps in security best practices. The extensive use of New Relic for session replay and error monitoring is a strength but raises privacy considerations. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The absence of vulnerability disclosure mechanisms and security.txt files suggests limited transparency in security incident handling. Enhancing these areas would improve the organization's security posture and compliance readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and data protection inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
orcid
Description
ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers and connects them with their contributions and affiliations to enhance research visibility and impact.
Key services
Researcher digital identifiers, Integration with research workflows, Data linking and management
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, New Relic Browser Agent, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Material Icons (Google Fonts)
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, New Relic Browser Agent
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
New Relic
Marketing tools
New Relic
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  3. Extensive use of New Relic for performance and session monitoring.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  5. No forms detected in the provided HTML content.
  6. Use of Google Fonts and Material Icons for UI consistency.
  7. Domain uses Cloudflare DNS but DNSSEC is not enabled.
  8. Website uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  10. No social media links explicitly found in the provided content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack with Google Tag Manager and New Relic for analytics and performance monitoring. Hosting is managed via Cloudflare DNS and Network Solutions registrar. The site loads quickly and is mobile-optimized with good accessibility basics. However, the absence of CMS identification and limited metadata reduces SEO potential. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance features to reduce risk and improve user trust.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with orcid.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 orcid.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.