Skip to main content

Security report for disroot.org

Greenhost · Technology · Netherlands

Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Disroot is a small non-profit technology platform founded in 2015 and operated by Greenhost in the Netherlands. It offers a suite of privacy-focused, decentralized online services including email, cloud storage, chat, collaborative tools, and more. The platform emphasizes freedom, privacy, federation, and decentralization, targeting privacy-conscious users and communities. The business model relies on donations and community support with optional paid upgrades for storage and domain linking. Technically, the website is built on GravCMS with common open source plugins and uses jQuery and Featherlight for UI enhancements. Hosting is provided by Greenhost, consistent with WHOIS data. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but no DNSSEC or security headers detected. Privacy compliance is strong with no tracking or ads and a clear privacy policy, though no cookie consent mechanism is present. No contact emails or phone numbers are publicly listed, which may limit direct user support. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-aligned with its privacy-centric mission.

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

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 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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 disroot.org

This scan found 18 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
75
Email security
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
77

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

Disroot occupies a niche market segment focused on privacy and decentralization, differentiating itself from mainstream cloud and communication providers by offering free, encrypted, and federated services. Its donation-based business model aligns with its non-profit status and community-driven ethos. The platform's extensive service portfolio, including email, Nextcloud, XMPP chat, and collaborative pads, positions it as a comprehensive alternative for privacy-aware users. The partnership with Greenhost as registrar and hosting provider strengthens operational legitimacy. The lack of explicit contact information and formal security policies may impact user trust and operational transparency. Growth potential exists within privacy-conscious communities and activists, supported by open source and federated technologies.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is presumably enforced, but DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a missed opportunity to enhance DNS security. No security headers were detected in the provided data, indicating room for improvement in mitigating common web vulnerabilities. The absence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure mechanism limits transparency and preparedness. The platform's commitment to no tracking, no ads, and encrypted services is a strong privacy and security indicator. However, implementing DNSSEC, security headers, and formalizing incident response would significantly strengthen the security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS integrity and security.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers such as CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Develop and make publicly available a security policy and incident response plan including contact channels for security issues.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism if any cookies are used to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Greenhost
Description
Disroot is a platform providing online services based on principles of freedom, privacy, federation and decentralization.
Key services
Email, Cloud storage (Nextcloud), XMPP Chat, Collaborative Pads, Encrypted Paste Bin, Encrypted File Upload, Anonymous Search, Videoconferencing, Code hosting (Forgejo), Voice chat
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
GravCMS, jQuery, Featherlight lightbox, Markdown notices plugin, Tagcloud plugin, Language selector plugin, Featherlight JS
Frameworks
GravCMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited
  • No tracking, no ads, no profiling policy
  • Use of HTTPS implied but not explicitly confirmed in data

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

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. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on main pages.
  3. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite privacy focus.
  4. WHOIS data shows domain is registered to a known hosting provider consistent with website claims.
  5. Multiple privacy-respecting services offered with emphasis on encryption and decentralization.
  6. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; DNSSEC not enabled.
  8. Website uses GravCMS and common open source plugins.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, aligning with privacy claims.
  10. Social media presence limited to Mastodon and RSS feed links.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses GravCMS, a modern flat-file CMS, combined with jQuery and Featherlight for UI components. The technology stack is open source and well-supported, suitable for a privacy-focused platform. Hosting by Greenhost aligns with the domain registration and business claims. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. SEO is adequately addressed with meta tags and structured navigation. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, supporting privacy claims. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which could expose the site to DNS spoofing and common web attacks. Modernization opportunities include enhancing security headers and formalizing privacy and security compliance mechanisms.
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 disroot.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 disroot.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.