Skip to main content

Security report for front-end.social

front-end.social · Technology · Iceland

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and DNS health.

Security score

73/100

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 inclusivity, accessibility, and human-centered technology. The platform offers decentralized social media services with a controlled registration process to maintain a sustainable and welcoming community. The website content is well-structured, with clear community guidelines and active moderation, positioning it as a niche social network within the federated Mastodon ecosystem. Technically, the site runs Mastodon version 4.3.8 with a modern JavaScript and React-based frontend. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 5.4 seconds and good mobile optimization and accessibility features. However, the hosting provider is not explicitly identified, and the SSL/TLS configuration is critically lacking, with no valid certificate or enabled TLS protocols, which severely impacts security posture. Security-wise, the site benefits from HSTS with includeSubDomains enabled and no major known vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern TLS support are critical issues. The domain uses privacy-protected WHOIS registration, which is justified for this type of community platform but may reduce trust for some users. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published. Overall, front-end.social presents a trustworthy and well-intentioned community platform with good content and business credibility but suffers from critical security configuration gaps. Strategic improvements in SSL deployment, privacy compliance (cookie consent), and security policy transparency are recommended to enhance trust and protect users effectively.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of front-end.social. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 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

  2. 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 19 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
75
Email security
65
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
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

The platform occupies a niche market within the federated social media space, targeting front-end web developers and enthusiasts who prioritize human values and diversity. Its business model is community-centric, relying on controlled growth and active moderation rather than commercial monetization. The absence of advertising and tracking tools aligns with its privacy-conscious ethos. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its focused community and clear code of conduct, fostering a safe and inclusive environment. Growth is deliberately slow to maintain quality and sustainability. Partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident, and the platform leverages open-source Mastodon software, reducing operational complexity. The use of privacy-protected domain registration is consistent with its community nature but should be balanced with transparency to build broader trust.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate but with critical deficiencies. The presence of HSTS is positive, but the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols expose users to risks such as data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The absence of DMARC records and OCSP stapling further weakens email and certificate security. No formal security or incident response policies are published, limiting transparency and preparedness. The platform does not employ tracking or advertising scripts, reducing privacy risks. Overall, the security culture appears community-driven but would benefit from professional security hardening and compliance measures to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user connections.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable insecure legacy protocols.
  3. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve transparency.
  4. Publish clear security and incident response policies including contact channels for abuse or security issues.
  5. Add DMARC DNS records to improve email authentication and reduce phishing risks.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Mastodon 4.3.8 with a React-based frontend, using chunked JavaScript and CSS assets for modular loading. The site is hosted on an IP address (178.33.220.142) with DNS managed by registrar servers. Performance is moderate with a 5.4-second load time and nearly 500KB page size, which is acceptable for a social media platform. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and ARIA attributes. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent significant technical debt and security risk. DNSSEC is not enabled, and no CAA records are present. The site uses privacy-protected WHOIS registration, which is common for small community sites but reduces transparency. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires security modernization and improved compliance features.
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. 68/100Medium31 findingsView report
  3. 68/100Medium32 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.