Skip to main content

Security report for centos.org

The CentOS Project · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The CentOS Project is a well-established, community-driven open source initiative focused on delivering robust Linux distributions, primarily CentOS Stream and CentOS Hyperscale. It serves a broad audience including developers, enterprises, and open source enthusiasts, positioning itself as a key player in the Linux ecosystem closely aligned with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The project offers extensive community engagement through forums, mailing lists, chat, events, and documentation, supported by a wide range of sponsors and partners. Technically, the website employs modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap 5, Font Awesome, and Highlight.js, ensuring a responsive, accessible, and performant user experience. The site is well-structured with clear navigation and optimized for mobile devices. Hosting details are not explicitly disclosed, but the site uses HTTPS with strong SSL configuration, though DNSSEC is not enabled. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices including HTTPS enforcement and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers, a published security policy, incident response contacts, and a vulnerability disclosure mechanism. Privacy compliance is supported by a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service, but no cookie consent mechanism is present, which is a minor compliance gap. Overall, the CentOS website is professional, trustworthy, and technically sound, with a strong community focus. Strategic improvements in security transparency and privacy mechanisms would further enhance its posture and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

3 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 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 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 centos.org

This scan found 18 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. See sample alerts.

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
85
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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

CentOS operates as an important entity within the open source technology sector, providing free Linux distributions that serve as a foundation for enterprise and community use. Its business model is community-driven, supported by sponsorships from major technology companies such as Amazon Web Services and AltusHost. The project benefits from a strong partnership ecosystem including Red Hat and Fedora, enhancing its market position. The target customers include developers, system administrators, and organizations requiring stable Linux platforms. Growth indicators include active community participation, frequent board meetings, and ongoing special interest groups. The project maintains a transparent governance model and a broad sponsorship base, which supports sustainability and innovation.

Security posture

The CentOS website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data or vulnerable libraries. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and a formal security policy or incident response contact reduces its security maturity. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file, which are best practices for open source projects. Privacy compliance is strong with a detailed privacy policy, but the lack of a cookie consent mechanism is a minor gap. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by adopting additional security headers, publishing incident response information, and implementing vulnerability disclosure processes.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the centos.org domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve protection against common web attacks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The CentOS Project
Description
Community-driven free software effort focused on delivering a robust open source ecosystem around a Linux platform.
Key services
CentOS Stream distribution, CentOS Hyperscale distribution, Special Interest Groups (SIGs) for various Linux ecosystem components, Community forums, mailing lists, chat, events, and documentation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, Font Awesome, Highlight.js, Google Fonts, Vanilla Back To Top
Frameworks
Bootstrap 5
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by https URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected
  • No forms collecting sensitive data

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

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 community resources.
  2. No forms collecting personal data detected on the main page.
  3. Strong community engagement via multiple channels and social media.
  4. No explicit security policy or incident response contact found on the site.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR compliance claims.
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found.
  7. Website uses modern frontend technologies and is mobile optimized.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  9. WHOIS data shows domain is well maintained and not privacy protected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern, widely adopted frontend technologies including Bootstrap 5 for responsive design, Font Awesome for icons, and Highlight.js for code syntax highlighting. It uses Google Fonts for typography and a vanilla JavaScript library for back-to-top functionality. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with clear navigation and structured content. Performance is fast with minimal external dependencies. There is no detected CMS, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. The site lacks some advanced security configurations such as DNSSEC and security headers, which represent opportunities for technical improvement.
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. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with centos.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 centos.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.