Skip to main content

Security report for arstechnica.com

Ars Technica · Media · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Ars Technica is a long-established online media platform specializing in technology news, reviews, and analysis since 1998. It targets technologists, IT professionals, and tech enthusiasts with comprehensive coverage across IT, AI, science, cybersecurity, and tech policy. The website operates under the parent company Conde Nast and leverages a subscription and advertising business model. Technically, the site is built on WordPress and employs modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and advanced analytics tools like Snowplow and Permutive. Hosting is via Amazon AWS infrastructure, ensuring reliable performance and scalability. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer restrictions in place, though DNSSEC is not enabled and explicit security policies are not published. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with consent management tools but lacks visible privacy and cookie policies in the provided content. Overall, the site demonstrates high professionalism, excellent content quality, and strong business credibility.

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. 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
  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching arstechnica.com

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
67
Security headers
65
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
81

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 arstechnica.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,296
Employees
0
Customers
3,237
Third parties
59
Weak passwords
15%

12 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 arstechnica.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

Ars Technica holds a strong market position as a trusted source for technology news and analysis, benefiting from its long domain age and association with Conde Nast. Its business model combines advertising with subscription services managed via Chargebee. The target audience is specialized, focusing on technologists and IT professionals, which supports niche content and advertising strategies. The site integrates multiple advertising and tracking technologies, balancing monetization with user consent mechanisms. No suspicious domains or partners were identified, indicating a clean partnership ecosystem. The brand maintains consistent and professional digital presence with strong SEO and structured data implementation.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and employs domain status protections to prevent unauthorized transfers. Security headers are implied but not explicitly confirmed in the provided data. The absence of DNSSEC is a minor security gap. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analyzed content. However, the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is basic, with consent management scripts present but no visible privacy or cookie policies. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by publishing comprehensive policies and enabling DNSSEC.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy clearly accessible on the website.
  3. Provide explicit security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency.
  4. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ars Technica
Description
News and reviews, covering IT, AI, science, space, health, gaming, cybersecurity, tech policy, computers, mobile devices, and operating systems.
Key services
Technology news, Product reviews, In-depth analysis, Tech policy coverage
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Snowplow Analytics, Chargebee, Google Publisher Tags, Fides.js (privacy management), ElasticPress
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Client and server transfer prohibitions on domain
  • Use of security-focused scripts and privacy management tools

Analytics and tracking

Services
Snowplow Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Permutive
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick, Conde Nast Digital Ads
Tracking pixels
Snowplow Analytics, Permutive
Marketing tools
Chargebee (subscription management)
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established technology news and review platform.
  2. Uses modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  3. No explicit privacy or security policies found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. Domain is old and consistent with business claims.
  5. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges.
  6. Good SEO and structured data implementation.
  7. Advertising and tracking are present but managed with consent tools.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Snowplow Analytics, and Chargebee for subscription management. Hosting is provided via Amazon AWS, indicated by the use of AWS DNS servers. The site demonstrates fast performance, excellent mobile optimization, and good accessibility features. SEO is well implemented with canonical tags, Open Graph metadata, and JSON-LD structured data. The presence of multiple advertising and tracking scripts is managed with a consent framework (Fides.js), reflecting a mature approach to privacy and marketing. Technical risks are minimal, with no visible outdated or vulnerable libraries. Opportunities exist to improve DNS security and enhance published security and privacy documentation.
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 arstechnica.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 arstechnica.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.