Skip to main content

Security report for ghost.io

Ghost Foundation · Technology · United Kingdom

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 publishing platform designed for creators, publishers, and businesses to build and monetize content through blogs, newsletters, and paid subscriptions. The platform is well-positioned in the technology sector with a mature domain and a strong user base, emphasizing independence and user funding without investors. Technically, the website leverages modern web technologies including Hugo, Alpine.js, and Cloudflare DNS, delivering fast performance and excellent mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and domain transfer protections, though improvements such as DNSSEC and explicit security policies could enhance trust. Privacy compliance is good with clear privacy and cookie policies, though a consent mechanism is absent. Overall, the site demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and content quality, making it a reliable platform in its niche.

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.io

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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention ghost.io, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,161
Employees
0
Customers
2,161
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
11%

895 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for ghost.io.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 an open source alternative to proprietary publishing platforms gives it a competitive advantage, appealing to creators seeking control and monetization options. Its business model combines SaaS subscriptions with an open source core, fostering community contributions and enterprise adoption. Revenue streams include paid subscriptions and marketplace sales of themes and integrations. The target audience spans individual creators, independent publishers, and modern businesses focused on content marketing. Partnerships and integrations with services like Stripe, MailChimp, and GitHub enhance ecosystem value. Growth indicators include a large number of new publications launched weekly and endorsements from notable publishers. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining independence and expanding security and compliance transparency.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain status set to clientTransferProhibited, reducing risk of unauthorized domain transfers. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options suggests room for improvement. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no dedicated security contact emails are provided. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures to strengthen user trust and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with privacy regulations.
  5. Provide explicit security contact emails (e.g., security@ghost.org) for vulnerability reporting.
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
Blogging platform, Email newsletters, Paid subscriptions, Custom themes, Integrations
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Hugo, Cloudflare DNS, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3, Video embedding
Frameworks
Alpine.js
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
FirstPromoter, Dub, Ahrefs
Marketing tools
FirstPromoter, Ahrefs, Dub
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 content monetization.
  3. Clear navigation and comprehensive resources for different user groups.
  4. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious activity.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and good SEO practices.
  6. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers visible; contact via form.
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  8. No cookie consent banner despite cookie policy presence.
  9. Domain uses Cloudflare DNS but no DNSSEC enabled.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Hugo static site generator, enhanced with Alpine.js for interactivity, and served with Cloudflare DNS. It uses modern HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript technologies, including video content for rich media presentation. The site is well-optimized for performance and mobile devices, with extensive use of preloading fonts and assets. SEO is well addressed with comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. No technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected. Hosting details are not explicit but likely cloud-based. The site demonstrates a modern, scalable, and maintainable technical infrastructure suitable for a professional SaaS platform.
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. 79/100 −3Low25 findingsView report
  2. 82/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ghost.io. 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.io.

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.