Skip to main content

Security report for eupolicy.social

eupolicy.social · Government · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

eupolicy.social is a niche Mastodon server dedicated to professionals and enthusiasts involved in EU policy. It operates as a community-driven platform providing a respectful and friendly environment for discussion related to EU policy matters. The server is administered by a small team of volunteers and funded through voluntary contributions, emphasizing its non-commercial and community-oriented nature. The website clearly communicates its purpose, rules, and administrative contacts, fostering trust and transparency within its user base. Technically, the site leverages the Mastodon open-source social networking platform (version 4.4.5) and modern web technologies including React and JavaScript ES modules. The platform supports federated social media participation via the ActivityPub protocol. The website demonstrates good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features, with a moderate performance profile. SEO practices are adequate with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data in its HTML content. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy and HSTS, and does not provide a cookie consent mechanism, which are areas for improvement. The absence of WHOIS data due to privacy protection is justified given the community nature of the service, though it slightly reduces trustworthiness from a domain registration perspective. Overall, eupolicy.social presents a trustworthy, well-maintained community platform with a clear focus and good technical foundation. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing cookie consent for GDPR compliance, publishing a security policy, and improving accessibility to further strengthen its security posture and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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 eupolicy.social

This scan found 20 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
52
Security headers
75
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
58
Average
65

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

eupolicy.social occupies a specialized market niche as a Mastodon instance focused on EU policy professionals and related stakeholders. Its business model is based on voluntary funding, reflecting a non-profit or community-driven approach rather than commercial monetization. This positions the platform as a trusted space for open discussion without advertising or tracking, appealing to privacy-conscious users. The presence of named admins and moderators adds credibility and governance structure. The platform's integration with the broader fediverse via Mastodon enhances its reach and interoperability. Growth potential lies in expanding its user base within EU policy circles and maintaining a high-quality, respectful community environment. Partnerships with related social instances like chaos.social indicate a collaborative ecosystem. The lack of commercial advertising or affiliate programs aligns with its community ethos.

Security posture

The security posture of eupolicy.social is solid but not comprehensive. The site uses HTTPS exclusively, ensuring encrypted communications. It avoids exposing sensitive information in its publicly accessible content and uses a modern tech stack with no visible vulnerable libraries. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces its defense-in-depth. There is no published security policy or incident response information, which limits transparency in handling security events. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present, which could hinder coordinated vulnerability reporting. GDPR compliance is partially addressed through a privacy policy, but the lack of a cookie consent mechanism is a compliance gap. Overall, the platform demonstrates a good baseline security level appropriate for a community social server but should enhance policies and technical controls to improve resilience and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR cookie regulations.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and security researchers.
  4. Create and maintain a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users and meet accessibility standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
eupolicy.social
Description
A privately run Mastodon server for people working in areas related to EU policy, providing a friendly and respectful discussion space.
Key services
Mastodon social networking, Federated social media participation, Community discussion platform
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon 4.4.5, React, JavaScript ES Modules, ActivityPub protocol
Frameworks
React
Platforms
Fediverse, Mastodon
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

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 Mastodon instance focused on EU policy professionals.
  2. Content is accessible and well-structured with clear information about admins and rules.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses provided.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR relevance.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable due to unsupported TLD or privacy protection.
  7. Uses modern web technologies and open source Mastodon platform.
  8. No advertising or tracking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Mastodon version 4.4.5, utilizing React and modern JavaScript modules, indicating a contemporary and maintainable codebase. The use of ActivityPub protocol enables federated social networking, aligning with decentralized social media trends. The site loads multiple preloaded modules and assets efficiently, suggesting moderate performance. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design elements and appropriate meta viewport settings. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags including Open Graph data. However, no CMS is detected, consistent with Mastodon's architecture. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. The site lacks some advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms, representing technical debt in compliance and security best practices. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid for a community social platform but could benefit from incremental modernization in security and privacy features.
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 eupolicy.social. 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 eupolicy.social.

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.