Skip to main content

Security report for cosocial.info

CoSocial Community Cooperative · Non-profit · Canada

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CoSocial Community Cooperative operates a member-owned, democratically-run open social media platform focused on the Canadian market. Positioned as a non-profit alternative to corporate social media, it aims to foster justice, equity, and inclusivity. The website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and accessibility features, providing a good user experience and clear navigation. However, the absence of WHOIS data and lack of explicit privacy, cookie, and contact policies present transparency and compliance gaps. Security posture is decent with HTTPS enforced but lacks explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the platform is credible and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures.

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

8 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 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

    • 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 cosocial.info

This scan found 24 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
52
Security headers
50
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
54

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 cooperative targets Canadian users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media, leveraging the Mastodon ecosystem. Its business model is cooperative membership-based, emphasizing democratic governance and community ownership. The platform's niche positioning as a non-profit social media alternative differentiates it from commercial competitors. The presence of related domains for member discourse indicates an engaged community ecosystem. Growth potential is tied to increasing dissatisfaction with corporate social media. However, limited public contact and policy transparency may hinder broader adoption and trust.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data, reflecting a baseline security maturity. However, the lack of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are provided, which could delay response to security incidents. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and similar regulations. Overall, security practices are adequate but require formalization and enhancement to meet best practices for non-profit digital platforms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to improve security posture.
  3. Establish and disclose a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security inquiries.
  5. Consider WHOIS data transparency or justification for privacy protection to improve trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CoSocial Community Cooperative
Description
CoSocial, officially CoSocial Community Cooperative, is a member-owned organization with the purpose of providing democratically-run open social media.
Key services
Democratically-run open social media platform, Community cooperative membership
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.2, GeneratePress theme, Google Fonts (Nunito), Rank Math SEO plugin, WP Emoji, JSON-LD structured data
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by canonical URLs and image URLs using https)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based cooperative social media platform for Canada
  2. No WHOIS data available, indicating privacy or unregistered domain
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed
  5. Good SEO and structured data implementation
  6. No security headers detected in HTML source
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond SEO plugin
  8. Content is safe and appropriate for general audiences
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with the GeneratePress theme and Rank Math SEO plugin, ensuring good SEO and accessibility. The use of Google Fonts and emoji scripts is standard. Performance is moderate with responsive design and good mobile optimization. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. However, the hosting provider is not identified, and no advanced security or performance optimizations (e.g., CDN, caching plugins) are evident from the HTML source. Opportunities exist to enhance 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 cosocial.info. 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 cosocial.info.

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.