Skip to main content

Security report for feddit.nl

Technology · Netherlands

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Feddit.nl is a Dutch instance of the federated social platform Lemmy, hosted and maintained by an individual or small team associated with @tedvdb. The platform offers community-driven discussion forums with a focus on respectful and moderated content. The website is technically sound, leveraging modern web technologies such as Bootstrap and Inferno.js, and enforces security best practices including HTTPS and DNSSEC. However, it lacks explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, which are important for regulatory compliance and user trust. The platform employs registration controls to mitigate bot abuse, indicating a proactive security stance. Overall, feddit.nl serves a niche audience interested in decentralized social networking within the fediverse.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

7 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching feddit.nl

This scan found 19 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
75
Security headers
80
Email security
72
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
10
Average
59

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

Feddit.nl operates as a small-scale community platform within the technology sector, specifically in federated social networking. Its business model is community-supported, with no advertising or tracking, relying on donations and volunteer moderation. The instance targets users interested in open-source, privacy-conscious social media alternatives. The presence of multiple linked subdomains and partnerships with other Lemmy instances suggests an active participation in the federated ecosystem. Growth indicators include steady user and content statistics since its 2023 inception. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its moderation policies and technical safeguards against spam and bots.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security posture with enforced HTTPS, DNSSEC, and captcha-based registration to prevent automated abuse. The use of slur filtering and email verification further enhances security. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits transparency and preparedness. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The platform would benefit from formalizing its security documentation and providing clear channels for reporting security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add a terms of service page detailing user rights and responsibilities.
  3. Implement a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and general inquiries.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
A Dutch Lemmy instance hosted by @tedvdb
Key services
federated social networking, community discussions, content sharing
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Lemmy platform, Bootstrap, Inferno.js, WebManifest, Captcha (medium difficulty)
Frameworks
Bootstrap, Inferno.js
Platforms
fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • DNSSEC enabled
  • Captcha enabled for registration
  • Email verification required
  • Registration by application to prevent bots
  • Slur filter regex to block spam domains

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a federated social platform instance (Lemmy) focused on community discussions.
  2. Registration requires application to prevent bots, indicating proactive security measures.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found, which is a compliance gap.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed on the homepage or metadata.
  5. Content is moderated with clear community rules against illegal and adult content.
  6. Multiple external federated instances and communities linked, showing active federation.
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected, indicating privacy-conscious design.
  8. Site uses HTTPS with DNSSEC, enhancing security posture.
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  10. Site content is accessible without WAF or security challenges.
Technical notes

Notes

Feddit.nl is built on the Lemmy platform, utilizing Bootstrap for responsive design and Inferno.js for frontend rendering. The site is hosted by DigiState B.V., a Dutch registrar, with DNSSEC enabled and HTTPS enforced, indicating a secure and modern infrastructure. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. SEO is basic but present through meta tags and Open Graph data. The site avoids third-party advertising and tracking, aligning with privacy-focused principles. Technical debt appears low, but opportunities exist to improve accessibility and formalize compliance documentation.
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 feddit.nl. 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 feddit.nl.

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.