Skip to main content

Security report for authorityhacker.com

Judgement Media Ltd · Media · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 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

Authority Hacker, operated by Judgement Media Ltd based in London, Great Britain, is a well-established digital media company specializing in marketing education focused on building authority websites. The company offers a variety of content including free resources, podcasts, and training courses targeting business owners, marketers, and bloggers. The website demonstrates a strong market position with a consistent brand and high-quality content that appeals to its target audience. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and various marketing pixels, optimized for performance and mobile responsiveness. Security posture is good with HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities, though explicit security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is basic, lacking visible privacy and cookie policies, which is an area for enhancement. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-optimized for SEO and user experience.

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

5 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 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 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 authorityhacker.com

This scan found 23 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
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

Authority Hacker operates in the media sector with a focus on digital marketing education. Its business model revolves around content marketing, affiliate marketing, and educational products. The company has a medium-sized presence with a significant subscriber base and podcast downloads, indicating strong growth and engagement. The presence of multiple social media channels and testimonials enhances credibility. The lack of public WHOIS data suggests privacy protection, common in digital media businesses. The company registration number is provided, supporting legitimacy. The website's ecosystem includes partnerships with known marketing platforms like Ahrefs and Hubspot, reinforcing its market integration.

Security posture

The website maintains a solid security posture with enforced HTTPS and use of reputable third-party analytics and marketing tools. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options were not clearly visible and should be verified or implemented to enhance protection against common web attacks. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are not evident, which may pose compliance risks under GDPR and similar regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, indicating potential gaps in transparency. Overall, the security maturity is good but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and prominently display a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent banner to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add explicit security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen web security.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to enhance transparency and incident response readiness.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility, including dedicated security contact channels, to improve trust and communication.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Judgement Media Ltd
Registration number
09008376
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Judgement Media Ltd
Description
We share actionable, field-tested tactics to grow your traffic and conversions.
Key services
Free marketing resources, Podcast episodes, Training and courses on affiliate marketing, SEO, blogging, and WordPress
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Perfmatters plugin, GeneratePress theme, GenerateBlocks plugin, Rank Math SEO plugin
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and analytics scripts asynchronously
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Ahrefs Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (AW- conversion tracking), Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  3. WHOIS data is missing or privacy protected.
  4. Strong use of modern marketing and analytics technologies.
  5. No explicit privacy or cookie policy found in the scanned HTML.
  6. Contact information is present in structured data but no visible contact forms found in scanned content.
  7. Multiple social media profiles linked and verified.
  8. Good SEO and accessibility practices observed.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the GeneratePress theme and GenerateBlocks plugin, indicating a modern and flexible CMS platform. It leverages multiple analytics and marketing technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, and Twitter Universal Website Tag, enabling comprehensive user tracking and marketing optimization. The site uses a CDN (Bunny.net) for asset delivery, contributing to fast load times and good performance. Fonts are loaded from Google Fonts with preconnect optimizations. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a high-quality user experience and effective digital marketing.
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 authorityhacker.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 authorityhacker.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.