Skip to main content

Security report for sae.edu

SAE Institute · Education · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SAE Institute is a global education provider specializing in creative media courses with multiple regional campuses worldwide. The website analyzed serves as a regional selector landing page directing users to localized campus sites. The business model focuses on delivering specialized education in creative media to students internationally, positioning itself as a large, established educational institution. Technically, the site uses a lightweight design with jQuery and Matomo analytics, hosted on Amazon AWS infrastructure. However, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate, which severely impacts its security posture and user trust. Security configurations such as DNSSEC, HSTS, and CAA records are missing, and no privacy or cookie policies are present on this landing page. The use of Matomo indicates some level of user tracking without explicit consent mechanisms, raising privacy concerns. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate digital maturity but requires significant improvements in security and compliance to meet modern standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 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

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

Keep watching sae.edu

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
90
GDPR outside view
40
Average
67

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

SAE Institute operates a network of regional campuses, each with dedicated domains, indicating a decentralized but branded global presence. The business targets students interested in creative media education, leveraging localized content and language support. The absence of visible contact information or policies on this landing page suggests that detailed business and compliance information is likely hosted on regional sites. The use of Amazon AWS for hosting and S3 for media delivery reflects a scalable infrastructure. The presence of SPF and DMARC records shows some email security awareness, though these rely on external redirection. The lack of GDPR compliance indicators and cookie consent mechanisms on this page may expose the organization to regulatory risks in certain jurisdictions.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate, lack of HTTPS enforcement, and missing security headers such as HSTS. DNS security features like DNSSEC and CAA are not implemented, increasing risk of DNS spoofing and unauthorized certificate issuance. While SPF and DMARC are configured, they redirect to external domains, which may complicate email security management. No public security policy or incident response contacts are found, limiting transparency and preparedness. The use of Matomo analytics without consent mechanisms suggests moderate user tracking but poor privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is low, with critical vulnerabilities that could impact user trust and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting TLS 1.2 or 1.3 to secure all site traffic.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  3. Enable DNSSEC and configure CAA records to enhance DNS and certificate security.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  5. Add visible contact information including security incident response contacts and data protection officer details.
  6. Implement cookie consent mechanisms to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  7. Review and optimize Matomo analytics configuration to minimize user tracking and enhance privacy.
  8. Regularly audit DNS and email security configurations to ensure SPF and DMARC effectiveness.
  9. Improve website accessibility and mobile optimization to enhance user experience.
  10. Establish a public vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to foster responsible security reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a minimal tech stack with jQuery 3.6.0 slim and Matomo analytics scripts loaded asynchronously. Media assets are hosted on Amazon S3, and DNS is managed via AWS Route53 with multiple geographically distributed nameservers. The site lacks a CMS identification but appears to be a custom or static site. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 3.7 seconds and a page size of about 70 KB. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with simple responsive design and limited ARIA or semantic markup. SEO optimization is basic, with meta description and viewport tags present but no Open Graph or Twitter Card metadata. The absence of modern security protocols and headers indicates technical debt and potential risks to business continuity and 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with sae.edu. 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 sae.edu.

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.