Skip to main content

Security report for bundlephobia.com

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Bundlephobia is a specialized web service launched in 2017 that helps JavaScript developers and frontend engineers analyze the size and performance impact of npm packages before integrating them into their projects. The website provides tools to measure package size, composition, and exports, including a beta feature to scan package.json files. It occupies a niche market position focused on frontend bundle optimization and is supported by open source community trust signals such as GitHub sponsorship and transparent hosting credits. Technically, the site is built on modern frameworks like Next.js and React, hosted on DigitalOcean, and uses Amplitude for analytics and Sentry for error monitoring, indicating a mature digital infrastructure with good performance and mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections, though improvements are needed in DNSSEC, security headers, and formal privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences, but lacks explicit contact and compliance documentation which slightly reduces its privacy compliance score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching bundlephobia.com

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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
58

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

Bundlephobia operates as a free developer tool service targeting frontend developers concerned with JavaScript bundle sizes. Its business model appears to be community and sponsorship-driven rather than commercial sales. The company leverages open source and GitHub presence to build credibility and attract users. The service ecosystem includes integration with npm and analytics platforms, positioning it as a valuable resource in the JavaScript development lifecycle. Growth potential lies in expanding features like package scanning and possibly monetizing advanced analytics or enterprise offerings. The partnership ecosystem includes GitHub and DigitalOcean, indicating reliance on established technology providers. The lack of direct contact information and formal policies suggests a lean operational structure focused on product delivery rather than extensive corporate infrastructure.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain registrar protections such as clientTransferProhibited status. Use of Sentry for error monitoring and Amplitude for analytics shows attention to operational security and user behavior tracking. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers like Content-Security-Policy, and lack of published privacy or cookie policies indicate gaps in security best practices and compliance. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. There is no exposed sensitive data or known vulnerabilities detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small technology service but could be improved to meet higher compliance standards such as GDPR and NIS2.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  3. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and general inquiries to improve trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Bundlephobia helps you find the performance impact of npm packages. Find the size of any javascript package and its effect on your frontend bundle.
Key services
npm package size analysis, performance impact estimation, package composition and export analysis, package.json file scanning (beta)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Amplitude Analytics, Sentry, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Sentry for error and exception monitoring
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Amplitude
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Amplitude
Marketing tools
Amplitude Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided
  4. Uses modern web technologies and analytics
  5. Security practices are good but could be improved with explicit policies and headers
  6. Content is focused on npm package size and performance impact
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Next.js and React, leveraging server-side rendering and static export capabilities for performance. It uses Amplitude for analytics and Sentry for error monitoring, indicating a mature approach to user behavior tracking and operational stability. Hosting on DigitalOcean provides reliable infrastructure. The site is mobile optimized and uses Google Fonts with preconnect hints for performance. No CMS is detected, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. The site loads multiple JavaScript chunks asynchronously, supporting modular and efficient loading. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but present. The technical stack is modern and well-implemented, with opportunities to improve security headers and formalize compliance 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 bundlephobia.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 bundlephobia.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.