Skip to main content

Security report for adweek.com

ADWEEK · Media · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ADWEEK is a well-established U.S.-based media publication specializing in advertising, media, and technology news. It targets marketing professionals and industry stakeholders with premium content and events. The website demonstrates a mature technical infrastructure leveraging WordPress CMS, React for navigation, and multiple analytics and advertising technologies. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers, though explicit privacy and cookie policies are not clearly found in the provided content. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, which raises transparency concerns but the professional branding and content quality support legitimacy. Overall, the site is a credible media platform with room for improvement in privacy compliance and public security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 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

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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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 adweek.com

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. 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
65
Security headers
20
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
70
Average
68

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 adweek.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,360
Employees
0
Customers
2,322
Third parties
38
Weak passwords
12%

18 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 adweek.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

ADWEEK holds a strong market position as a leading advertising and marketing news source with a subscription-based business model. It offers premium gated content, branded events, and extensive advertising partnerships. The company maintains a consistent brand identity and targets a professional audience. Its ecosystem includes subsidiaries like Brandweek and Mediaweek. The site integrates advanced marketing and tracking tools, indicating a data-driven approach to audience engagement and monetization. Growth indicators include active event promotion and influencer marketing coverage.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and multiple security headers, indicating a robust security baseline. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies, security incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests gaps in compliance and transparency. The site uses advanced tracking and advertising technologies, which require careful privacy management. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly evident.

Recommendations

  1. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  2. Provide explicit security and incident response policies accessible to users and partners.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to enhance transparency.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS information visibility to improve domain registration transparency.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
ADWEEK
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ADWEEK
Description
ADWEEK is a U.S.-based weekly trade publication covering the business of advertising. It covers advertising-related topics including media, technology, and pop culture.
Key services
News and analysis in advertising, media, and technology, Subscription-based premium content, Events and branded content
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), Lytics, Amazon Ads, JW Player, Parsely, Pushly, YouTube Embed Plus, SVG Support, Zephr (paywall/identity management)
Frameworks
React (for navigation), Bootstrap (CSS framework)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of CSP

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Lytics, Parsely, Quantserve
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick, Amazon Ads, HTLBid
Tracking pixels
Lytics, Quantserve, LinkedIn Insight, Parsely, Pushly
Marketing tools
Zephr (paywall and user management), JW Player
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional media publication focused on advertising and marketing news.
  2. Content is premium gated with subscription model.
  3. Uses modern web technologies and analytics extensively.
  4. No visible security or privacy policy pages found in provided content.
  5. WHOIS data unavailable or protected, which reduces transparency.
  6. No WAF or blocking detected; site fully accessible.
  7. No adult or explicit content detected; safe for general audience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with React components for navigation, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries and CSS frameworks. It integrates multiple third-party analytics and advertising services, including Google Analytics, Lytics, and Amazon Ads. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. The site uses advanced ad management and paywall technologies (Zephr). Technical risks include reliance on multiple external scripts which require ongoing security monitoring. Opportunities exist to improve accessibility and reduce technical debt by consolidating scripts and enhancing privacy controls.
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. 66/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with adweek.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 adweek.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.