Skip to main content

Security report for bonfire.com

Bonfire · E-commerce · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Bonfire is an established e-commerce platform founded in 2012, specializing in custom apparel design and fundraising campaigns. It offers users the ability to design, sell, and order custom merchandise without upfront inventory costs, handling printing, shipping, and customer support. The platform targets individuals, nonprofits, and organizations seeking easy-to-use merchandising solutions. Technically, the website is built using modern tools including Framer for site building, Heap Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Intercom for customer engagement. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO and user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities, though explicit security headers and policies are lacking. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. WHOIS data is unavailable, which raises some trust concerns, but the website's content, social proof, and branding indicate a legitimate business. Strategic improvements in privacy transparency and security disclosures are recommended.

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

4 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 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 bonfire.com

This scan found 20 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
40
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
74

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

Bonfire operates in the print-on-demand e-commerce sector with a focus on fundraising and nonprofit apparel sales. Its business model eliminates inventory risk by printing and shipping on demand. The company leverages social media and customer reviews to build trust and market presence. The platform's key competitive advantage is its free-to-use model with only processing fees on donations, appealing to nonprofits and fundraisers. The presence of multiple social media channels and review platforms indicates active engagement and reputation management. The lack of WHOIS data is a notable anomaly but does not currently impact operational credibility. Growth potential lies in expanding product offerings and enhancing privacy and security compliance to meet evolving regulatory demands.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates reputable third-party analytics and customer support tools, indicating a baseline security maturity. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, limiting transparency for security researchers. Privacy compliance is insufficient, with no visible cookie consent or privacy policy in the analyzed content, potentially exposing the company to regulatory risk under GDPR and similar frameworks. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adopting best practices in headers, disclosures, and privacy management.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to ensure GDPR and global privacy compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting and incident response.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing clear contact channels for security and abuse reporting to build trust with users and researchers.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Bonfire
Description
Bonfire is a free online platform that lets users design and sell custom shirts through online campaigns or order in bulk. It handles printing, shipping, and support, enabling sales without upfront costs.
Key services
Order Custom T-Shirts, Sell Custom T-Shirts, T-Shirt Fundraising, Nonprofit Apparel Fundraising
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Heap Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Intercom, Convert Experiences, Framer (site builder)
Frameworks
React (implied by Framer usage)
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of third-party security and analytics scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Heap Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Convert Experiences
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Heap Analytics, Convert Experiences
Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and structured data.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for an established commercial site.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  4. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools without visible cookie consent.
  5. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information.
  6. Contact information includes a support email and Intercom chat widget.
  7. Strong branding and consistent design with good SEO metadata.
  8. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Framer, a modern web design and development platform, combined with React-based components. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools including Heap Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Intercom, and Convert Experiences, indicating a mature digital marketing infrastructure. The site is mobile responsive and optimized for SEO with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to reduce blocking. However, the lack of explicit hosting provider information and security headers suggests room for improvement in infrastructure transparency and security hardening. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional user experience but should address privacy and security gaps to reduce technical debt and regulatory risk.
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. 75/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with bonfire.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 bonfire.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.