Skip to main content

Security report for curationexchange.org

Curation Costs Exchange · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Curation Costs Exchange is a specialized platform focused on understanding and comparing digital curation costs to support smarter investments. It serves organizations and professionals involved in digital preservation by providing cost assessment tools, benchmarking capabilities, and vendor service information. The platform is supported by reputable organizations and funded by the European Union, positioning it as a niche but credible resource in the digital preservation community. Technically, the website is built on Joomla CMS and leverages a variety of standard web libraries such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and DataTables, delivering a moderately performant and mobile-optimized experience. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and implements cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks DNSSEC and explicit HTTP security headers, indicating room for improvement in hardening its security posture. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with GDPR requirements, though it lacks explicit security policies and incident response information publicly. Strategic recommendations include enhancing DNS security, adding security headers, and publishing security and incident response policies to improve trust and resilience.

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

7 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

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

Keep watching curationexchange.org

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
20
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
61

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 platform occupies a niche market segment focused on digital curation cost transparency and benchmarking, catering primarily to research institutions, digital preservation professionals, and funding bodies. Its business model revolves around providing a collaborative platform for cost comparison and investment planning rather than direct commercial sales. The presence of testimonials from respected organizations and EU funding support enhances its credibility and market positioning. The website's content and structure suggest a small-sized operation with a focused target audience. The lack of phone contact and physical addresses indicates a primarily digital and research-oriented engagement model. The partnership ecosystem includes multiple reputable digital preservation organizations, reinforcing its collaborative approach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR. However, the absence of DNSSEC and HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents potential vulnerabilities. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, which could impact user trust and compliance readiness. The use of multiple third-party libraries necessitates regular vulnerability assessments to mitigate risks. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a research platform but could benefit from enhanced technical controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS integrity and prevent spoofing attacks.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan to increase transparency and user trust.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party libraries and update them promptly to address vulnerabilities.
  5. Consider adding more comprehensive contact information and terms of service to enhance business credibility and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Curation Costs Exchange
Description
Understanding and comparing digital curation costs to support smarter investments
Key services
Cost assessment tools, Cost comparison platform, Vendor services listings, Educational resources on digital curation costs
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap 3.4.1, Bootstrap Slider, Bootstrap Form Helpers, Pace.js, Bootstrap Editable, DataTables, Chart.js, Bootstrap Switch, Bootstrap Tour
Frameworks
Joomla
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • CSRF token present in page scripts

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a specialized platform for digital curation cost analysis and benchmarking
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and professional design
  3. Multiple testimonials from reputable organizations enhance trust
  4. No visible security policy or incident response information publicly available
  5. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented and GDPR privacy policy is present
  6. No terms of service page found
  7. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly listed
  8. No analytics or advertising scripts detected
  9. No social media links found
  10. Uses Joomla CMS with multiple standard libraries and plugins
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with a tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap 3.4.1, DataTables, Chart.js, and other common libraries. The site loads with moderate performance and is mobile optimized with responsive design elements. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified beyond the registrar (IONOS SE). No advanced platforms or cloud services are detected. The site uses standard cookie consent scripts and CSRF tokens, indicating attention to basic security practices. However, the absence of DNSSEC and HTTP security headers suggests technical debt in security hardening. Overall, the technical infrastructure is stable but could be modernized and secured further.
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 curationexchange.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 curationexchange.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.