Skip to main content

Security report for codeberg.org

Codeberg e.V. · Non-profit · Germany

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

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Codeberg.org is a non-profit, community-driven platform providing Git hosting and related services for free and open source software projects. Operated by Codeberg e.V., based in Berlin, Germany, it emphasizes privacy, no tracking, and community values. The platform is powered by Forgejo, a fork of Gitea, and offers additional services such as Codeberg Pages, Translate, and Woodpecker CI. The website is professionally designed, mobile-optimized, and provides clear navigation and comprehensive content relevant to its audience of developers and open source contributors. Technically, the site uses modern open source technologies and maintains good performance and accessibility standards. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and privacy-respecting policies, though some security headers and formal policies could be improved. WHOIS data shows domain privacy protection consistent with the organization's privacy focus and a domain age appropriate for its history. Overall, Codeberg.org presents a trustworthy, well-maintained, and privacy-conscious service for the open source community.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of codeberg.org. View the latest report

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

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 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

  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 codeberg.org

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
60
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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 codeberg.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,320
Employees
0
Customers
3,320
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
7%

2 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 codeberg.org.

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

Codeberg e.V. positions itself as a privacy-first, non-profit alternative in the Git hosting market, targeting developers, hobbyists, and professionals who value free culture and open source collaboration. Its business model relies on donations and memberships, reinforcing independence and community governance. The platform's partnership with Forgejo strengthens its technical foundation. Growth indicators include a large user base and project count, and the organization actively encourages community involvement and contributions. The absence of advertising and tracking aligns with its market differentiation. Strategic partnerships and transparent governance enhance its credibility and sustainability.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, CSRF protection in forms, and a strict no-tracking policy. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and common security headers are not explicitly present, which could be improved to harden defenses. Incident response contact is available via abuse reporting channels, but no formal security policy or vulnerability disclosure program is published. The lack of cookie consent mechanisms is a minor compliance gap given the privacy focus. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to enhance transparency and incident response readiness.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  5. Consider publishing contact emails for security and data protection officers to facilitate communication.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Codeberg e.V.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Codeberg e.V.
Description
Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led organization that provides Git hosting and other services for free and open source projects. It is maintained by Codeberg e.V., based in Berlin, Germany, focusing on supporting free culture, openness, and creativity without tracking or profiteering.
Key services
Git hosting, Codeberg Pages, Codeberg Translate, Woodpecker CI, Forgejo API, Status Page
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Gitea (Forgejo fork), JavaScript, HTMX, Mermaid, SVG, CSS
Frameworks
Forgejo
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No third-party tracking
  • No third-party cookies
  • CSRF tokens in forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

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 no blocking.
  2. Strong emphasis on privacy and community values.
  3. No tracking or advertising detected.
  4. Uses modern open source technologies and a fork of Gitea (Forgejo).
  5. WHOIS privacy protection is used but justified.
  6. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on main page; contact via forms and documentation.
  7. No cookie consent mechanism present despite privacy focus.
  8. No explicit security policy or vulnerability disclosure page found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Forgejo, a modern fork of Gitea, leveraging JavaScript, HTMX, and SVG for interactive and responsive UI. The site is well-structured with proper meta tags and Open Graph data for SEO and social sharing. Performance is fast with minimal external dependencies and good mobile optimization. Accessibility features are present, including ARIA labels and keyboard navigation support. Hosting details are not explicit but likely self-managed or privacy-focused. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, with opportunities to enhance security headers and DNS 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 64/100Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 64/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with codeberg.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 codeberg.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.