Skip to main content

Security report for brisbanetimes.com.au

Brisbane Times · Media · Australia

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

Brisbane Times is a regional news media website delivering news coverage focused on Brisbane, Queensland, and global events. The site targets a general audience interested in current affairs and regional news. It operates a paywall model for some content, indicating a subscription-based revenue stream. The website demonstrates a professional design and consistent branding, positioning itself as a reputable regional news source in Australia. Technically, the website employs a modern JavaScript-heavy infrastructure with multiple third-party analytics and advertising integrations, including Google Tag Manager, Amazon Ads, Rubicon Project, and Snowplow Analytics. The site is mobile-optimized and shows good SEO practices but lacks explicit CMS identification and hosting provider details. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but lacks visible security headers and published security policies. WHOIS data is minimal and privacy protected, which reduces transparency. No explicit privacy or cookie policies were detected in the provided content, indicating potential compliance gaps. The site extensively tracks users via multiple analytics and advertising scripts, which may raise privacy concerns. Overall, Brisbane Times presents a moderate risk profile with a solid business presence but requires improvements in privacy compliance, security best practices, and transparency to enhance trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching brisbanetimes.com.au

This scan found 13 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
90
Security headers
85
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
70
Average
86

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 brisbanetimes.com.au, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
418
Employees
0
Customers
372
Third parties
46
Weak passwords
15%

6 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 brisbanetimes.com.au.

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

Brisbane Times operates as a large regional media outlet in Australia, focusing on news delivery for Brisbane and Queensland audiences. Its business model includes subscription paywalls and advertising revenue. The site leverages partnerships with major advertising networks and analytics providers to monetize and analyze user engagement. The lack of detailed WHOIS registrant data suggests use of privacy protection services, which is uncommon for media outlets but may be due to registrar policies. The site targets general news consumers and maintains consistent branding and professional content quality. Growth opportunities may include enhanced digital engagement and compliance improvements.

Security posture

The website's security posture is moderate but shows several gaps. HTTPS is enabled, ensuring encrypted communications. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or X-Content-Type-Options were detected, which are important for mitigating common web attacks. The absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits transparency and preparedness. Extensive use of third-party scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. The WHOIS privacy protection reduces domain ownership transparency, which may be a concern for trust. Overall, the site should enhance security headers, publish security policies, and improve privacy compliance to strengthen its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with explicit GDPR compliance statements and consent mechanisms.
  3. Disclose security policies and incident response contacts publicly to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve user trust.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Brisbane Times
Description
Brisbane Times is a news website providing news coverage focused on Brisbane, Queensland, and world news.
Key services
news articles, news updates, subscription/paywall content
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Amazon Ads, Rubicon Project, Snowplow Analytics, Chartbeat, Nielsen SDK, Tinypass (Piano)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Analytics and tracking

Services
Chartbeat, Nielsen, Snowplow Analytics, Google Analytics, Bing Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Amazon Ads, Rubicon Project, Google DoubleClick, Google Ad Services, Bing Ads
Tracking pixels
Chartbeat, Nielsen, Facebook Pixel, Snowplow Analytics
Marketing tools
Tinypass (Piano)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional news media site focused on Brisbane and Queensland news.
  2. Content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  3. WHOIS data is minimal and privacy protected, limiting domain ownership transparency.
  4. Multiple third-party advertising and analytics scripts are used, indicating extensive user tracking.
  5. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided HTML content.
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content provided.
  7. No security headers or explicit security policies detected in the HTML content.
  8. Website uses modern JavaScript libraries and tracking technologies.
  9. Content is safe for general audiences with no adult or NSFW material detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based front end with integrations from multiple analytics and advertising providers such as Google Tag Manager, Amazon Ads, Rubicon Project, and Snowplow Analytics. It employs DNS prefetch and preconnect optimizations for performance. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses custom fonts and CSS variables for branding consistency. However, no CMS or hosting provider information was identified. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed and accessibility. The extensive use of third-party scripts increases complexity and potential security risks. Technical debt appears moderate, with opportunities for modernization and security hardening.
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 brisbanetimes.com.au. 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 brisbanetimes.com.au.

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.