Skip to main content

Security report for cookiethough.dev

In the pocket · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Cookie Though is an open source technology project developed by 'In the pocket' that provides an easy-to-use, minimal footprint cookie consent management application designed to help website owners comply with GDPR regulations. The website positions itself as a niche provider focusing on usability and accessibility, targeting developers and site owners who need a compliant cookie banner solution. The business model is based on open source distribution with community engagement via GitHub. Technically, the site uses modern web standards including JavaScript and Google Fonts, with good SEO and accessibility practices. The site is fast and mobile optimized, with no detected CMS or complex frameworks. Security posture is moderate; while HTTPS is implied, no explicit security headers or policies are published, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional with a clear focus on privacy compliance but could improve by publishing more explicit security and incident response information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

5 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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. 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.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  4. 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 cookiethough.dev

This scan found 22 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
40
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
68

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

The company 'In the pocket' operates in the technology sector, providing GDPR compliant cookie consent solutions as an open source project. The market positioning is focused on usability and compliance, appealing to developers and website owners. The business leverages GitHub for code distribution and community involvement. There is no evidence of monetization or enterprise scale, indicating a small business or project scale. The partnership ecosystem includes its own parent domain 'inthepocket.mobi'. The lack of contact information and formal policies suggests a lean operational model. Growth indicators are not visible from the website content. Strategic observations include potential to expand by adding formal support channels and security certifications to enhance trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS usage and a cookie consent mechanism that supports GDPR compliance. However, it lacks published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. No security headers were detected in the provided data, which is a gap in best practices. There are no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of forms collecting personal data reduces risk exposure. Overall, the security culture appears basic but adequate for the scope of the project. Improvements in transparency and formal security documentation would enhance the posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page including incident response procedures and contact channels.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear contact information for privacy and security inquiries to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Consider formalizing business information and certifications to strengthen credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
In the pocket
Description
Easy to use, minimal footprint application that manages cookie preferences. So delicious, you'll never need another library again.
Key services
Cookie preference management, GDPR compliant consent mechanisms, Accessibility support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Fonts, CSS
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Cookie consent with fine-grained controls
  • No inline forms or data collection beyond consent

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is focused on GDPR compliant cookie consent management.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on the main page.
  4. No forms collecting personal data detected.
  5. Open source project with GitHub repository linked.
  6. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  7. No terms of service page found.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond cookie consent library.
  9. Good SEO and accessibility practices observed.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a lightweight JavaScript library for cookie consent management, Google Fonts for typography, and standard CSS for styling. No CMS or heavy frameworks were detected, indicating a simple and maintainable technical stack. Performance is likely fast given minimal external dependencies. Accessibility is supported with fine-grained controls and user preference support. SEO is well addressed with meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. There is an opportunity to improve technical security by adding HTTP security headers and formalizing SSL/TLS configurations. The site is modern but could benefit from additional technical documentation and monitoring.
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 cookiethough.dev. 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 cookiethough.dev.

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.