Skip to main content

Security report for bouncycastle.org

Bouncy Castle · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Bouncy Castle is a well-established provider of open-source cryptographic APIs primarily for Java and C# platforms. The company is recognized for its FIPS-certified cryptographic solutions and support for quantum-ready cryptography, positioning it as a key player in the security software industry. The website reflects a professional and modern digital presence, leveraging WordPress CMS with SEO and performance optimizations. While the technical infrastructure is robust and the site is mobile-optimized, there is a lack of explicit privacy and security policies which could be improved to enhance compliance and user trust. Security posture is generally strong with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, but could benefit from additional security headers and published incident response information. Overall, the domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, which slightly impacts trustworthiness, but the website's content and social media presence support its legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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 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 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. 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching bouncycastle.org

This scan found 25 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
62
Security headers
45
Email security
55
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
88
Average
56

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

Bouncy Castle operates in the technology sector, focusing on cryptographic software development and distribution. Its business model centers on providing open-source cryptographic APIs with certifications that appeal to enterprise and developer audiences. The company maintains a strong market position due to its FIPS certification and quantum-ready cryptography offerings. The website targets developers and security professionals seeking reliable cryptographic tools. The presence on multiple social media platforms and GitHub indicates an active community and partnership ecosystem. However, the absence of detailed business contact information and WHOIS transparency suggests areas for improvement in business credibility and transparency.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism indicating GDPR awareness. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security robustness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits the site's compliance and readiness for security incidents. Enhancing these areas would improve the security maturity and trustworthiness of the platform.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen security posture.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Improve WHOIS data transparency or use a registrar that provides clear registrant information to enhance domain trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Bouncy Castle
Description
Bouncy Castle is one of the most widely used FIPS-certified open-source cryptographic APIs for Java and C#, including quantum-ready cryptography support and Long Term Stable releases.
Key services
Cryptographic APIs for Java and C#, Quantum-ready cryptography support, Long Term Stable releases
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, CookiePro Consent Management, Font Awesome, Typekit Fonts, WP Rocket
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
CookiePro
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Content is focused on cryptographic APIs and open-source software.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on main page.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented indicating GDPR awareness.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust verification.
  6. Website uses modern technologies and SEO best practices.
  7. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on main page.
  8. Social media presence is strong with official Facebook, Twitter, GitHub, YouTube, and Threads accounts linked.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and WP Rocket for SEO and performance optimization. It uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and CookiePro for consent management, indicating a focus on privacy compliance. The site loads quickly and is mobile-optimized with responsive design. Fonts are served via Typekit and Font Awesome icons are used for UI elements. No major technical debt or outdated technologies were detected. However, the hosting provider and server details are not disclosed, and no advanced security headers are implemented. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and performant web presence but could benefit from enhanced security configurations.
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 bouncycastle.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 bouncycastle.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.