Skip to main content

Security report for firefox.com

Mozilla · Technology · N/a

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

Mozilla, a well-established non-profit organization founded in 2004, offers the Firefox web browser as a privacy-focused, customizable alternative to mainstream browsers. The website www.firefox.com serves as a landing and download portal for Firefox desktop and mobile browsers, emphasizing user privacy, ad blocking, and multi-device synchronization. The site is professionally designed with excellent content quality and strong branding consistency, targeting general internet users seeking enhanced privacy and control online. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including JavaScript, CSS3, and integrates error tracking and analytics tools such as Sentry and Google Tag Manager. The website is mobile-optimized and performs well with good SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and privacy policies clearly presented, though explicit security headers and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent. WHOIS data for the domain www.firefox.com is missing, which is inconsistent with the Mozilla brand's long history; Mozilla primarily uses mozilla.org domains. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency in security policies and incident response contacts.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of firefox.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      Missing X-XSS-Protection header

      Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

      What to do: Add "X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block"

    • Medium

      Missing Permissions-Policy header

      Controls browser features and APIs

      What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access

      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Permissions-Policy: accelerometer=(), autoplay=(), camera=(), cross-origin-isolated=(),…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Medium

      Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

      Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

      What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Medium

      No DKIM record found

      DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

      What to do: Configure DKIM with your email provider

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

Keep watching firefox.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
85
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
84

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

Mozilla operates in the technology sector as a non-profit entity focused on internet health and privacy. Firefox is a flagship product with a large user base worldwide. The business model centers on providing free software and services, supported by donations and partnerships rather than direct sales. The company maintains a strong community and open-source ecosystem, with extensive resources, support, and add-ons available. The website reflects a mature digital presence with multiple language options and integration with social media platforms. Mozilla's market position is strong as a leading independent browser provider with a reputation for privacy and user empowerment. The absence of direct contact information on the site suggests a focus on community-driven support rather than traditional customer service channels.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and includes a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR compliance. Privacy policies are comprehensive and prominently linked. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of a published security.txt file or dedicated vulnerability disclosure page indicate areas for improvement. No incident response contact emails or phone numbers are provided, which could hinder timely reporting of security issues. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  2. Add explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Enhance WHOIS domain registration transparency or clarify domain ownership to improve trust.
  5. Maintain and regularly update privacy and cookie policies to ensure ongoing GDPR compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Mozilla
Description
Firefox is a free web browser backed by Mozilla, a non-profit dedicated to internet health and privacy. Firefox was created in 2004 by Mozilla as a faster, more private, and customizable alternative to browsers like Internet Explorer. Mozilla is not-for-profit and not owned by billionaires.
Key services
Firefox Browser desktop, Firefox Browser mobile, Add-ons, Support, Enterprise solutions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3, Sentry (error tracking), Google Tag Manager
Platforms
Desktop, Mobile (Android, iOS)
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner
  • Privacy policy prominently linked

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Sentry
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. Strong privacy and user consent mechanisms implemented.
  3. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found on the site.
  4. WHOIS data for www.firefox.com domain is missing, indicating domain may not be registered or uses privacy protection.
  5. Mozilla uses mozilla.org domains primarily; firefox.com redirects or is a landing domain.
  6. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure page found.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response contact information found.
  8. Social media presence is strong with official Firefox accounts on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Bluesky.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with JavaScript, CSS3, and HTML5, supported by analytics and error tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager and Sentry. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and supports multiple languages. Performance is fast with no broken elements detected. No CMS or hosting provider details were identified from the content. The site structure and metadata are well implemented, supporting SEO and social media integration. Opportunities exist to improve technical security by adding security headers and publishing vulnerability disclosure information.
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. 86/100Low22 findingsView report
  2. 86/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with firefox.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 firefox.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.