Skip to main content

Security report for geno.social

Hostsharing eG · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 3 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

geno.social is a niche Mastodon instance dedicated to cooperatives, cooperative organizations, and cooperative activists. Operated by the cooperative Hostsharing eG, it provides a decentralized social media platform that integrates with the broader fediverse, promoting small, secure, and independent instances. The website clearly communicates its mission and target audience, offering account registration via a contact form and providing transparent contact information. The business model centers on community-driven social media hosting with a focus on cooperative values. Technically, the site runs Mastodon version 4.4.8 with a React-based frontend, leveraging modern JavaScript modules and polyfills for compatibility. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content.

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

6 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. 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.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

  3. 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 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

  4. 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 geno.social

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
70
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
58
Average
60

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 positions itself as a specialized social media host for cooperatives, differentiating from mainstream social networks by emphasizing decentralization and cooperative operation. Its competitive advantage lies in its community governance and alignment with cooperative principles. Revenue streams likely include cooperative membership and hosting fees. The target customers are cooperative organizations and individuals active in cooperative movements. The partnership with Hostsharing eG strengthens its credibility and operational support. Growth potential depends on the expansion of the fediverse and cooperative adoption of decentralized social media. The ecosystem includes links to Mastodon official resources and Hostsharing's main site, indicating a focused but limited partnership network.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible exposure of sensitive data or vulnerable libraries. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options, which could enhance protection against common web attacks. There is no published security policy or incident response information, which limits transparency in security governance. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism is a compliance gap given GDPR relevance. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present, reducing avenues for responsible vulnerability reporting. Overall, the security maturity is moderate with room for improvement in policy publication and technical headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen web security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan on the website to enhance transparency and trust.
  4. Create a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users and comply with accessibility standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Hostsharing eG
Description
Instanz für Genossenschaften, kooperative Organisationen und genossenschaftlich Aktive. geno.social wird selbst von einer Genossenschaft betrieben: der Hostsharing eG. geno.social bietet insbesondere Genossenschaften die Möglichkeit, ihre Social-Media-Aktivitäten in das soziale Netz der Zukunft auszudehnen. geno.social will mithelfen, das Fediverse durch viele, kleine Instanzen dezentraler und damit sicherer zu machen.
Key services
Mastodon social media hosting, Federated social network participation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon 4.4.8, React, JavaScript ES Modules, Polyfills, CSS, SVG
Frameworks
Mastodon, React
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

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 cooperatives and decentralized social media.
  2. Operated by Hostsharing eG cooperative with clear contact info.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  4. No WAF or blocking detected; content fully accessible.
  5. WHOIS data is privacy protected with no public registrant info.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism found despite GDPR relevance.
  7. Security headers could be improved.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Mastodon 4.4.8 with a React frontend, using modern JavaScript ES modules and polyfills for browser compatibility. The site loads CSS and SVG assets efficiently and is mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected in the HTML structure or resource loading. The hosting is implied to be managed by Hostsharing eG, a cooperative likely providing stable infrastructure. There is no CMS detected beyond Mastodon's built-in system. SEO is basic with proper meta tags and Open Graph data but could be enhanced with structured data. Accessibility is basic and could benefit from improvements. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and suitable for the platform's purpose but could be enhanced with additional security and 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with geno.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 geno.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.