Skip to main content

Security report for ghost.io

Ghost Foundation · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

Ghost Foundation operates Ghost, a leading open source publishing platform designed for creators, publishers, and businesses to build websites, publish content, and manage memberships and subscriptions. The company emphasizes independence and user funding, positioning itself strongly in the digital publishing market with a comprehensive suite of tools including email newsletters, paid subscriptions, and a marketplace for themes and integrations. Technically, the website leverages modern frameworks such as Hugo and Alpine.js, integrates with services like Mailgun and Algolia, and uses Cloudflare for DNS and likely CDN services. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. However, the security posture reveals critical gaps including an invalid SSL certificate, lack of TLS protocols, and missing security headers, which significantly reduce the site's security score. While SPF and DMARC records are properly configured, the absence of HTTPS protection and HSTS is a major concern. Overall, Ghost demonstrates a mature business and technical presence but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS configuration and security best practices to protect user data and maintain trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of ghost.io. 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

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 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

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

Keep watching ghost.io

This scan found 12 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. 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
100
Security headers
80
Email security
90
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
82

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, user-funded publishing platform differentiates it from competitors reliant on venture capital or advertising revenue. Its business model combines SaaS subscription revenue with open source community engagement, targeting creators, independent publishers, and businesses seeking content marketing solutions. The platform supports a broad ecosystem of integrations and themes, enhancing its competitive advantage. Revenue streams include paid subscriptions for platform usage and marketplace transactions. The company showcases strong growth indicators with thousands of new publications weekly and notable customers such as YCombinator and Kickstarter. Partnerships with Mailgun, Stripe, and Algolia strengthen its operational capabilities. Strategic observations highlight a focus on independence, transparency, and community trust as core to its brand identity.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of the Ghost website is low due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, exposing users to potential interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. While DNS records show proper SPF and DMARC configurations, indicating good email security practices, the lack of HTTPS enforcement and missing security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and X-Frame-Options weaken the overall security posture. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, and no security.txt file is detected, limiting transparency and readiness for security incidents. Compliance with GDPR appears adequate through a comprehensive privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are not evident. The security culture could be improved by addressing these gaps and publishing clear security policies and contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting TLS 1.2 and 1.3 to secure all website traffic.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce HTTPS.
  3. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish a security.txt file and clearly disclose incident response contacts such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Hugo static site generator and enhanced with Alpine.js for interactivity. It integrates Algolia for search functionality and uses Mailgun for email services. DNS is managed via Cloudflare, providing robust DNS infrastructure. Performance metrics indicate moderate load times and resource counts, with good mobile optimization and accessibility. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is currently invalid, with no active protocols or cipher suites, representing a critical technical debt. The site uses modern fonts and responsive design techniques, ensuring a high-quality user experience. Tracking and marketing tools include FirstPromoter and DubCDN, with moderate user tracking levels. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent remediation of SSL/TLS issues to mitigate operational risks.
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. 79/100Low25 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.