Skip to main content

Security report for front-end.social

front-end.social · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

front-end.social is a small, community-driven Mastodon instance focused on front-end web developers who value diversity, accessibility, and human-centered technology. The platform emphasizes a safe and inclusive environment with a clear code of conduct and active moderation. It operates as a decentralized social media server within the fediverse, aiming for sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion. The website content is well-structured, informative, and targeted at a niche audience of web professionals and enthusiasts. Technically, the site uses Mastodon software with modern web technologies such as React and JavaScript, delivering a mobile-optimized and accessible user experience. Security posture is good with enforced HTTPS and manual moderation practices, though it lacks some security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. WHOIS data is privacy-protected but consistent with a legitimate community service. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally maintained, with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security headers.

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

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.

    • 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 384-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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching front-end.social

This scan found 23 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
65
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
68

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

The business operates as a niche social media platform within the decentralized fediverse ecosystem, targeting front-end web developers and related communities. Its competitive advantage lies in its focus on inclusivity, accessibility, and a human-first approach rather than corporate scale. The business model is community-supported with controlled registrations to maintain quality and sustainability. Revenue streams are not explicit but likely rely on donations or community support. The partnership with Mastodon and use of open-source software aligns with its values. The presence of active moderators and a clear code of conduct supports a healthy community culture. Growth is intentionally slow to preserve community quality. The ecosystem includes related domains like joinmastodon.org and about.front-end.social for additional information and app downloads.

Security posture

Security maturity is moderate to good. The site enforces HTTPS, uses manual human moderation to handle violations, and avoids automated disciplinary actions that could cause false positives. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security is a gap. There is no visible incident response or security policy documentation. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a privacy policy but lacks cookie consent mechanisms. The site does not expose WHOIS registrant data, which is justified for privacy. Overall, the security posture is appropriate for a small community platform but could be enhanced with additional headers and documented policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear terms of service document to define user rights and responsibilities.
  4. Consider documenting a security policy and incident response plan accessible to users to enhance trust and transparency.
  5. Maintain active monitoring for vulnerabilities and keep software dependencies up to date to reduce risk.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
front-end.social
Description
Front-end web makers who value humans over technology & embrace diversity on an accessible web. We hope to stay small & grow slowly.
Key services
Decentralized social media hosting, Community moderation, Accessible and inclusive social platform
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon, React, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Mastodon
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Manual moderation without automated disciplinary actions

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 front-end web developers and diversity
  2. Content is well-structured with a clear code of conduct and community guidelines
  3. No signs of malicious or adult content
  4. WHOIS data is privacy-protected with no registrar abuse indications
  5. No visible security headers but HTTPS is enforced
  6. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR relevance
  7. No terms of service page found
  8. Contact email admin@front-end.social is provided
  9. Site uses modern web technologies and is mobile optimized
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Mastodon, an open-source decentralized social media platform, using React and modern JavaScript. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets with integrity hashes, indicating attention to security in resource loading. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with meta tags for viewport and theme color. DNS prefetching is used for cdn.masto.host to improve performance. The hosting provider is inferred as Identity Digital Inc. based on WHOIS service references. Performance is moderate with no obvious blocking scripts or heavy resources. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS is detected, consistent with Mastodon's architecture. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and appropriate for the community-focused service.
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. 68/100Medium31 findingsView report
  2. 68/100 −5Medium32 findingsView report
  3. 73/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with front-end.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 front-end.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.