Skip to main content

Security report for fonts.com

MyFonts Inc. · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Fonts.com currently serves as a transitional landing page informing visitors that font sales have migrated to MyFonts.com and Monotype Fonts, both operated by Monotype. The site targets designers, agencies, and organizations seeking font licensing and purchases. The business model is e-commerce and subscription-based font licensing, positioning itself as a key player in the digital typography market. The website content is professional and consistent with the brand identity of Monotype and its subsidiaries. Technically, the site employs modern web standards including HTTPS, Content Security Policy headers, and cookie consent mechanisms. It uses common marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Intercom. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices but lacks some advanced accessibility features. No CMS or hosting provider details were detected. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good baseline security with HTTPS and CSP headers but lacks published security policies or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a concern but the website’s association with reputable Monotype platforms mitigates risk. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be improved with additional headers and transparency. The overall risk is moderate with no critical issues detected. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing security and incident response policies, and improving contact information transparency to strengthen trust and compliance.

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

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 fonts.com

This scan found 21 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
80
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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

Fonts.com is positioned as a legacy brand now integrated into Monotype’s ecosystem, leveraging MyFonts and Monotype Fonts platforms for font sales and subscriptions. This consolidation reflects a strategic move to unify font offerings under Monotype’s umbrella, enhancing market reach and licensing flexibility. The business targets professional designers, agencies, and enterprises requiring scalable font solutions. Revenue streams include direct font sales and subscription services. The partnership ecosystem includes Monotype and its subsidiaries, with strong brand recognition in the typography industry. Growth indicators include migration announcements and customer history preservation promises. The company operates in the technology sector with a focus on digital typography and font licensing.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and a Content Security Policy enforcing upgrade of insecure requests. Cookie consent is implemented via a recognized third-party script, indicating GDPR compliance efforts. However, the absence of additional security headers such as X-Frame-Options and Referrer-Policy suggests room for improvement. No incident response or security policy pages are published, limiting transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The WHOIS data absence is a potential red flag but is offset by the site’s affiliation with Monotype. Overall, the security maturity is good but could benefit from enhanced policies and header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement additional security headers including X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to strengthen defense-in-depth.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards for broader user inclusivity.
  4. Provide more comprehensive contact information including phone numbers and physical addresses to improve business credibility.
  5. Regularly monitor WHOIS data and domain registration status to ensure domain legitimacy and continuity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
MyFonts Inc.
Description
Fonts.com offers a selection of high-quality desktop and web fonts. As of March 28, 2024, fonts previously sold on Fonts.com are now available for purchase at MyFonts.com and through Monotype’s subscription service, Monotype Fonts. The platforms provide flexible licensing options and convenient access to fonts for websites, apps, digital ads, and more.
Key services
Font sales, Font subscriptions, Font licensing
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Intercom, CookieLaw.org Consent Management
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Content Security Policy header present
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Intercom
Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a transitional landing page informing users of migration to MyFonts and Monotype Fonts.
  2. No WHOIS data available for domain www.fonts.com indicating possible domain status issues or privacy.
  3. Site uses HTTPS with CSP header and cookie consent mechanism.
  4. No forms present on the page; contact via email link only.
  5. No phone numbers or physical addresses found on the page.
  6. No social media links detected.
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  8. Content is professional, safe, and targeted at font buyers and designers.
  9. External links point to reputable font platforms and Monotype corporate site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. It integrates third-party services such as Google Tag Manager for analytics and Intercom for customer engagement. Cookie consent is managed via CookieLaw.org scripts, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. The site is mobile responsive and SEO optimized with appropriate meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS or hosting provider details were detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Performance is moderate with no evident blocking scripts or errors. The site lacks advanced accessibility features but maintains basic usability standards. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and compliant web presence.
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. 73/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fonts.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 fonts.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.