Skip to main content

Security report for curator.io

Digital Privacy Corporation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Curator.io is a technology company offering a free forever social media aggregator service that enables users to collect and display content from multiple social networks with ease. The company positions itself as a competitive player in the social media aggregation market, targeting businesses and individuals who want to showcase social content on their websites. Their business model is SaaS-based with free and paid plans, emphasizing affordability and ease of use. The website features rich content including client testimonials and supports integration with major social platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and more. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks such as React and Next.js, hosted on Amazon AWS, and utilizes various analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Helpscout, and PostHog. However, the website's performance is slow, and while it is mobile-optimized and accessible, it lacks a valid SSL certificate and modern security configurations, which significantly impacts its security posture. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS and TLS protocols, lack of HSTS, and missing security headers are critical vulnerabilities. Although SPF and DMARC records are configured, the overall SSL and security setup is basic and requires immediate improvement. Privacy and cookie policies are present with consent mechanisms, indicating good privacy compliance, but there is no evidence of formal security policies or incident response plans. Overall, Curator.io presents a professional and content-rich website with moderate trustworthiness but suffers from critical security shortcomings. Strategic recommendations include implementing a valid SSL certificate with modern protocols, enhancing security headers, establishing incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies, and improving site performance to enhance user experience and security.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of curator.io. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

6 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 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 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 curator.io

This scan found 23 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
65
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
58

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 curator.io, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,647
Employees
0
Customers
2,645
Third parties
2
Weak passwords
11%

8 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 curator.io.

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

Curator.io operates in the technology sector, focusing on social media aggregation services. Its competitive advantage lies in offering a free forever plan with easy setup and integration across major social networks. The company targets a broad audience including marketers, businesses, and content creators seeking to display social content seamlessly. The presence of client testimonials and active blog content suggests a focus on customer engagement and thought leadership. The domain's maturity and consistent registration data support the company's legitimacy. However, the lack of direct contact details and formal security policies may impact customer trust and enterprise adoption. The company leverages a modern tech stack and cloud hosting but needs to address security and performance gaps to maintain competitive positioning.

Security posture

The current security maturity of Curator.io is low due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS enforcement, exposing users to potential data interception risks. The website does not implement critical security headers such as HSTS or Content-Security-Policy, increasing vulnerability to common web attacks. While SPF and DMARC records are correctly configured, the lack of OCSP stapling and session resumption mechanisms indicates an incomplete SSL/TLS setup. No evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies was found, which is a compliance gap under GDPR and NIS2 frameworks. The use of third-party scripts like Helpscout and PostHog introduces additional risk vectors that require regular auditing. Overall, the security posture is inadequate for a technology service provider and requires urgent remediation to protect user data and maintain compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate with support for TLS 1.2 and 1.3 protocols to secure all website traffic.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with preload and includeSubDomains directives to enforce HTTPS.
  3. Add comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Establish and publish an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance transparency and compliance.
  5. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience, especially on mobile devices.
Technical notes

Notes

Curator.io utilizes a modern technology stack centered around React and Next.js, hosted on Amazon AWS infrastructure. The site integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Helpscout, PostHog, and LinkedIn Insight. Despite the advanced stack, the website suffers from slow load times (over 11 seconds) and a large number of resources (111), indicating potential technical debt and optimization opportunities. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with proper meta tags and SEO configurations. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and incomplete TLS support are significant technical risks. The use of multiple third-party scripts requires ongoing security and performance monitoring to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
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. 69/100 −1Medium34 findingsView report
  2. 70/100Medium33 findingsView report
  3. 70/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with curator.io. 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 curator.io.

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.