Skip to main content

Security report for tetrapak.com

Tetra Pak International S.A. · Manufacturing · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Tetra Pak International S.A. operates a comprehensive global website showcasing its leadership in food processing and packaging solutions. The company targets food and beverage industry professionals, offering a broad range of services including packaging, integrated equipment, product innovation, and digital automation. The website is well-structured, professionally designed, and optimized for SEO and accessibility, reflecting a mature digital presence. Technically, the site is built on Adobe Experience Manager and hosted on IBM PWS, leveraging modern web technologies and third-party tools for analytics and cookie consent. However, the security posture is weakened by an invalid SSL certificate and lack of TLS protocol support, which poses risks to data confidentiality and user trust. Privacy and cookie policies are present with consent mechanisms, indicating compliance with GDPR and related regulations. Contact information is primarily via web forms, with no direct emails or phone numbers publicly listed. Overall, the site demonstrates high business credibility and professionalism but requires urgent remediation of SSL and TLS issues to improve security and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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

6 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching tetrapak.com

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
65
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
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

Tetra Pak holds a dominant market position as a global leader in manufacturing and supplying food processing and packaging solutions. Its business model focuses on B2B engagements with manufacturers and suppliers in the food and beverage sector. The company benefits from a strong parent entity, Tetra Laval Group, and maintains a broad international footprint with localized content for numerous countries and languages. The website content emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and comprehensive service offerings, supporting its competitive advantage. The digital ecosystem includes advanced marketing and analytics tools, supporting data-driven decision-making and customer engagement. The absence of direct contact details suggests a controlled communication channel strategy, likely to manage inquiries efficiently. The company’s branding and content quality reinforce trust and market authority.

Security posture

The website implements several security headers such as X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection, which are positive indicators of security awareness. The presence of HSTS header is noted in HTTP headers but contradicted by the SSL scan showing no TLS support and invalid certificate, indicating a misconfiguration or scanning anomaly. The lack of valid SSL/TLS undermines secure communications, exposing users to potential interception or man-in-the-middle attacks. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are found on the site, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. No known vulnerabilities or malware indicators are detected in the content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires immediate SSL/TLS remediation to meet industry standards and user expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately fix the SSL certificate to ensure it is valid, trusted, and properly configured.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) to secure data in transit.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency.
  5. Continue maintaining and updating privacy and cookie policies with explicit consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Adobe Experience Manager, a robust enterprise CMS, and hosted on IBM PWS, indicating a strong technical foundation. The use of Adobe Launch and OneTrust reflects mature marketing and privacy compliance tooling. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. However, performance metrics are missing or zero, suggesting incomplete data or monitoring gaps. The invalid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical technical debt and security risks. The site uses multiple external resources and scripts, including analytics and cookie consent, which are well integrated. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security upgrades to align with best practices.
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 tetrapak.com. 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 tetrapak.com.

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.