Skip to main content

Security report for ghost.deal

Ghost Foundation · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Ghost Foundation operates Ghost.org, a leading open source platform for professional publishing, enabling creators, publishers, and businesses to build websites, send newsletters, and manage paid subscriptions. The company positions itself strongly in the creator economy with a subscription-based SaaS model complemented by an open source core, appealing to a broad audience including creators, publishers, and modern businesses. The website demonstrates a mature digital presence with excellent content quality, professional design, and clear navigation, supporting a high level of user engagement and trust. Technically, the site leverages modern technologies including the Hugo static site generator, Cloudflare DNS, and various analytics and marketing tools. The platform is mobile-optimized, fast, and SEO-friendly, reflecting a high level of digital maturity. However, some minor security enhancements such as enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit security policies could further strengthen the infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and protects domain transfer, but lacks visible security headers and formal incident response disclosures. No vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected, and privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from additional transparency and technical hardening. The overall risk assessment is low, with no critical issues identified. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing a security policy and vulnerability disclosure, and enhancing security headers. These steps will improve trust and resilience, supporting Ghost's continued growth and leadership in the professional publishing space.

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

3 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 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 ghost.deal

This scan found 16 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
90
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
81

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

Ghost Foundation's market positioning as a top open source publishing platform gives it competitive advantages in transparency, community trust, and flexibility. Its business model combines SaaS subscription revenue with an open source ecosystem, attracting creators who value ownership and control. Revenue streams include paid plans, themes marketplace, and expert services. The target customers span individual creators, independent publishers, and businesses seeking content marketing solutions. Growth indicators include a large user base, notable customers, and active ecosystem integrations. Partnerships with payment processors and integration providers enhance the platform's capabilities and market reach. Strategic observations highlight the company's focus on independence, user empowerment, and sustainable revenue without investor influence.

Security posture

The security maturity level of Ghost.org is moderate to high. HTTPS is enforced site-wide, and domain transfer protections are in place. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents areas for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are comprehensive and GDPR compliant. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, which could hinder rapid response to security events. The security culture appears professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized security documentation. Overall, the site maintains a secure environment appropriate for its business but should address minor gaps to elevate its posture.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve overall DNS security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan on the website to increase transparency and preparedness.
  3. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Establish a public vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance trust signals by providing more explicit business contact information and certifications if applicable.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ghost Foundation
Description
Ghost is a powerful app for professional publishers to create, share, and grow a business around their content. It comes with modern tools to build a website, publish content, send newsletters & offer paid subscriptions to members.
Key services
Website building, Content publishing, Email newsletters, Paid subscriptions, Membership management, Themes marketplace, Integrations
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Hugo (static site generator), Cloudflare (DNS and likely CDN), JavaScript, Video embedding, Web fonts (Inter), FirstPromoter, Dub Analytics, Ahrefs Analytics
Frameworks
Hugo
Platforms
Ghost CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited
  • No DNSSEC enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Ahrefs Analytics, Dub Analytics, Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
FirstPromoter, Ahrefs Analytics, Dub Analytics
Marketing tools
FirstPromoter
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 multimedia.
  2. Strong focus on professional publishing and creator economy.
  3. No direct company emails or phone numbers found on homepage; contact via form.
  4. Multiple integrations and partner logos displayed, indicating ecosystem maturity.
  5. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and good SEO practices.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Hugo static site generator, delivering fast and optimized content. Hosting and DNS are managed via 1API GmbH and Cloudflare, providing reliable infrastructure and CDN capabilities. The tech stack includes modern web fonts, video content, and JavaScript-based analytics and marketing tools. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is well implemented with comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. The site shows no signs of technical debt or outdated technologies, indicating a well-maintained and modern technical environment. Opportunities exist to further improve security configurations and expand technical documentation.
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. 81/100 +2Low25 findingsView report
  2. 79/100Low26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ghost.deal. 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 ghost.deal.

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.