Skip to main content

Security report for wilmu.edu

Wilmington University · Education · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Wilmington University operates as a private, non-sectarian educational institution offering undergraduate and graduate programs primarily in Delaware, New Jersey, and online. The website presents a professional and content-rich platform targeting prospective students seeking higher education. The university's market position is regional with a focus on accessibility through multiple campuses and online offerings. Technically, the website employs modern analytics and tracking technologies such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, and LinkedIn Insight Tag, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, although the website content and branding strongly support its authenticity. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacks visible security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which are critical for compliance and trust. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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. 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

  2. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching wilmu.edu

This scan found 18 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
72
Security headers
25
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
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 wilmu.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,115
Employees
805
Customers
1,255
Third parties
1,055
Weak passwords
5%

Latest record dated 2026-07-01 · 37 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 wilmu.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –cognos.erp.wilmu.edu2026-07-01
  • –issmportal.wilmu.edu2026-06-30
  • –bookstore.wilmu.edu2026-06-26
  • –fs.wilmu.edu2026-06-26
  • –cognos.erp.wilmu.edu2026-06-26

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

The university targets students in the Delaware and New Jersey regions as well as online learners, offering a range of degree programs. Its business model is centered on private higher education with revenue streams likely from tuition and fees. The presence of multiple campuses and online education options suggests a hybrid delivery model. The use of extensive tracking and marketing tools indicates active engagement in digital marketing and student recruitment. The lack of visible contact information and privacy policies may impact user trust and compliance with regulations such as GDPR. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the provided data.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. It integrates several third-party analytics and marketing scripts loaded asynchronously, reducing performance impact but increasing the attack surface. No security headers were detected in the provided data, which is a gap in defense against common web attacks. The absence of visible privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance issues with data protection laws. No forms or input fields were found in the analyzed content, limiting exposure to input-based vulnerabilities. The WHOIS data absence is a red flag for domain legitimacy and may warrant further investigation. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires improvements in headers, policy transparency, and domain registration clarity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR and other regulatory compliance.
  3. Investigate and resolve the absence of WHOIS registration data to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
  4. Add visible and verified contact information including official emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts for vulnerabilities and minimize tracking to balance user privacy and marketing needs.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Wilmington University
Description
Wilmington University is a private, non-sectarian university that offers both undergraduate and graduate programs throughout Delaware, New Jersey and online.
Key services
Undergraduate degree programs, Graduate degree programs, Online education
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Font Awesome 6 Pro, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, Siteimprove Analytics, Google Custom Search Engine, Async Adsense Ads
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of modern analytics and tracking scripts with async loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Siteimprove Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Siteimprove Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich for an educational institution
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual and reduces trust score
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the analyzed content
  4. Extensive use of third-party analytics and tracking scripts
  5. No security headers detected in provided data; recommend adding for improved security
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet
  7. No forms detected in the provided content snippet
  8. No social media links explicitly found in the provided snippet, though Facebook and LinkedIn tracking scripts are present
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with Font Awesome 6 Pro for icons, Google Tag Manager for tag management, and multiple analytics platforms including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Siteimprove Analytics. Scripts are loaded asynchronously to optimize performance. The site appears mobile optimized with responsive CSS. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected from the provided data. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in accessibility features and SEO optimization. The lack of security headers and privacy policies indicates technical debt in security and compliance areas. The domain's WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual and suggests either privacy protection or registration issues.
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 wilmu.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 wilmu.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.