Skip to main content

Security report for age-encryption.org

FiloSottile · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website is a GitHub repository page for 'age', a simple, modern, and secure encryption tool and Go library developed by the user FiloSottile. It serves a technical audience of developers and security professionals seeking encryption solutions. The project is well-regarded with over 19k stars and a significant number of forks, indicating strong community interest and usage. The repository is hosted on GitHub's platform, leveraging its infrastructure and design system, ensuring good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility. However, the page itself lacks explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, which is typical for GitHub-hosted project pages but impacts privacy compliance scores. Security posture benefits from HTTPS enforced by GitHub and domain registration protections, though DNSSEC is not enabled. No direct contact information or vulnerability disclosure policies are present, which could be improved for better security transparency.

Scanned

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. 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

  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.

    • 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching age-encryption.org

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. 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
57
Security headers
75
Email security
80
DNS health
90
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The project operates as an open source software repository under the GitHub platform, with no direct commercial business entity apparent on the page. The business model is community-driven open source development, with funding links provided externally. The target market includes developers and organizations requiring secure encryption tools. The repository's popularity and active sponsorship indicate a healthy ecosystem and potential for sustained development. The lack of direct company information or formal business structure suggests the project is primarily individual or small team-led. The domain is mature and consistent with GitHub's ownership, reinforcing legitimacy.

Security posture

The security posture is solid due to GitHub's HTTPS enforcement and domain registration safeguards. However, the absence of explicit security policies, vulnerability disclosure, and security.txt files limits transparency and formal incident response readiness. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Security headers were not explicitly observed but may be managed by GitHub's infrastructure. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing security policies, and providing clear vulnerability reporting channels to enhance security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated privacy policy and cookie policy linked from the repository README or project website.
  2. Add a security policy and vulnerability disclosure document to the repository to guide responsible reporting.
  3. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to improve DNS security.
  4. Provide clear contact information or a dedicated security contact email for incident response.
  5. Consider adding security headers if hosting any custom web content outside GitHub.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
FiloSottile
Description
A simple, modern and secure encryption tool (and Go library) with small explicit keys, no config options, and UNIX-style composability.
Key services
Encryption tool, Go library for encryption
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Go (programming language), GitHub platform, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Primer CSS (GitHub's design system)
Platforms
GitHub
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced by GitHub
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
GitHub internal analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a GitHub repository page for an open source encryption tool
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  4. Site uses HTTPS and is hosted on GitHub infrastructure
  5. No advertising or third-party marketing tools detected
  6. Content is technical and targeted at developers
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy found
  8. Sponsor link points to an external funding page on filippo.io
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages GitHub's hosting platform, using modern web technologies including JavaScript and CSS based on GitHub's Primer design system. The repository page is well-structured, mobile optimized, and accessible. Performance is fast due to GitHub's CDN and infrastructure. No CMS is detected as the content is managed via GitHub. The domain is registered with a reputable registrar and has a long history, consistent with GitHub's domain usage. No technical debt or deprecated technologies were observed in the HTML content. The site lacks explicit SEO metadata beyond standard GitHub defaults but is sufficient for its purpose.
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 age-encryption.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 age-encryption.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.