Skip to main content

Security report for architectural-tribune.com

Architectural Tribune · Real Estate · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Architectural Tribune is a specialized media platform focused on architecture education, news, events, and profiles. It targets architects, designers, and industry professionals by providing curated content including news articles, webinars, and event listings. The platform operates on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and several plugins for social sharing and forms. The website demonstrates good design quality, clear navigation, and mobile optimization, supporting a positive user experience. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS usage implied but lacking explicit security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Privacy policies and terms are present and comprehensive, indicating awareness of compliance requirements. However, the absence of WHOIS data and direct company contact emails reduces business credibility and trustworthiness. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced security practices and transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching architectural-tribune.com

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
51

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 platform occupies a niche in the architecture and real estate media sector, providing valuable content and educational resources. Its business model revolves around content publishing, user engagement through free accounts, newsletters, and event promotion. The presence of social media channels and newsletter subscription indicates active audience engagement strategies. Lack of detailed company information and WHOIS data limits insight into corporate structure and longevity. The site appears to be a small-scale operation with a focused target audience. Growth potential exists through expanded content offerings and improved compliance and security measures.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and uses standard WordPress security plugins but lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS. No incident response or security policy pages are published, and no dedicated security contact channels are provided. The newsletter form includes a consent checkbox, supporting GDPR compliance, but no cookie consent banner is present. The site uses third-party analytics and tracking scripts, which require transparent data handling policies. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved by implementing recommended headers, cookie consent, and publishing security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to improve trust.
  5. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Architectural Tribune
Description
Architectural Tribune is a media platform focused on architecture education, news, events, profiles, and companies. It provides news articles, webinars, event listings, and company and project profiles related to architecture and design.
Key services
Architecture news articles, Webinars and e-learning, Event listings and archives, Profiles of architects, projects, companies, and products, Newsletter subscription
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 5.3.20, jQuery, Bootstrap 4.3.1, FontAwesome, Owl Carousel, Gravity Forms, Social Warfare plugin
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (implied by URLs)
  • Consent checkbox on newsletter form

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Social Warfare plugin
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based architecture news and education platform.
  2. No WHOIS data available, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy protection.
  3. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via forms only.
  4. Privacy policy and terms & conditions pages are present and linked in footer.
  5. No cookie consent banner detected despite GDPR-relevant forms collecting personal data.
  6. Uses Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking with moderate user tracking level.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; SSL usage implied but not confirmed.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  9. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  10. Social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 5.3.20 with a combination of Bootstrap 4.3.1, jQuery, FontAwesome, and Owl Carousel for UI components. It uses Gravity Forms for data collection and Social Warfare for social sharing. The site loads external scripts asynchronously, improving performance. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO meta tags are properly configured. However, no explicit hosting provider information is available. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements by optimizing scripts and images. Accessibility is basic, with room for enhancements such as ARIA landmarks and improved keyboard navigation.
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 architectural-tribune.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 architectural-tribune.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.