Skip to main content

Security report for f1.com

Formula One World Championship Limited · Transportation · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Formula One World Championship Limited operates the official Formula 1 website, serving as the primary digital platform for F1 news, live timing, video content, and merchandise. The site targets motorsport enthusiasts globally, offering comprehensive coverage and subscription services. The technical infrastructure leverages modern web technologies including Next.js and React, hosted on AWS CloudFront, ensuring a scalable and responsive user experience. However, a critical security gap exists due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate, severely impacting the site's security posture. Despite this, the site maintains strong privacy compliance with clear policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the website is professional and content-rich but requires urgent remediation of its SSL/TLS configuration to ensure user trust and data security.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

5 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching f1.com

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
75
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
55

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 f1.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
242
Employees
0
Customers
157
Third parties
85
Weak passwords
32%

6 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 f1.com.

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

The website holds a leading position in the motorsport media industry, leveraging its official status to provide exclusive content and services. Its business model includes content distribution, subscription-based streaming (F1 TV), merchandise sales, and event ticketing. The site integrates with numerous official partners and sponsors, enhancing its commercial ecosystem. The presence of detailed driver and team information, race calendars, and multimedia content supports high user engagement. The brand's global reach and partnerships with major corporations like LVMH, Pirelli, and Aramco underscore its market strength and strategic alliances.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While security headers are properly configured, the absence of HTTPS is a critical vulnerability. No evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies was found, indicating potential gaps in security governance. The site demonstrates good privacy policy implementation and cookie consent mechanisms, aligning with GDPR requirements. Immediate action is needed to implement SSL/TLS to protect user data and maintain compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across all pages.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3) and strong cipher suites to secure data in transit.
  3. Establish and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response procedures.
  4. Enhance security monitoring and regular audits to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities promptly.
  5. Continue to maintain transparent privacy and cookie policies with clear user consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with Next.js and React, providing a responsive and dynamic user experience. Hosting on AWS CloudFront ensures global content delivery and scalability. The site includes extensive structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and rich snippets. Performance metrics were not available, but the site appears optimized for mobile and accessibility. The absence of SSL/TLS is a significant technical risk. The site integrates multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing, and advertising, indicating a mature digital ecosystem. Continuous monitoring of dependencies and security configurations is recommended to mitigate technical risks.
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 f1.com. 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 f1.com.

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.