Skip to main content

Security report for ghost.org

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 their content through blogs, newsletters, and paid subscriptions. The platform is well-positioned in the market as a professional-grade alternative to other CMS and newsletter tools, emphasizing independence and user ownership. Technically, the website leverages modern technologies including Hugo for static site generation, Cloudflare DNS, and a rich multimedia experience optimized for performance and SEO. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement and domain transfer protections, though some enhancements like DNSSEC and published security policies could improve trust further. Privacy compliance is robust with clear policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, Ghost.org presents a professional, trustworthy, and technically mature digital presence with a strong business model and community backing.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of ghost.org. View the latest report

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.org

This scan found 15 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
85
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.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
11,793
Employees
0
Customers
11,790
Third parties
3
Weak passwords
9%

18 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.org.

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 targets creators, publishers, and businesses seeking a modern, open source platform for content publishing and monetization. Their business model combines open source software with subscription-based SaaS offerings, enabling revenue through paid memberships and premium features. The company has a medium-sized footprint with a long domain history dating back to 2005, reinforcing market credibility. Partnerships with payment processors like Stripe and integrations with numerous third-party services enhance their ecosystem. The platform's emphasis on no investors and user-funded development appeals to a niche valuing independence and transparency. Growth indicators include thousands of new publications launched weekly and a diverse user base spanning creators to enterprises.

Security posture

Ghost.org demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced site-wide, domain status set to clientTransferProhibited, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of DNSSEC and published security or incident response policies indicates room for improvement in defense-in-depth and transparency. The site uses multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools with consent mechanisms, balancing data collection with privacy compliance. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected in the content or WHOIS data. The security score is strong but could be enhanced by adding security headers and formal vulnerability disclosure processes.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  3. Implement additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options to harden the web application.
  4. Consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosures.
  5. Maintain and regularly audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure ongoing privacy compliance and security.
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 (static site generator), Cloudflare DNS, JavaScript, Video embedding, Web fonts (Inter), JSON-LD structured data
Frameworks
Hugo
Platforms
Ghost CMS
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

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
FirstPromoter, Dub, Ahrefs Analytics, Plausible
Marketing tools
Plausible Analytics, Ahrefs Analytics
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. Comprehensive navigation with clear segmentation for creators, publishers, and businesses.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and good SEO practices.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main site; contact likely via account portal or support pages.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published on main site.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected.
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present and comprehensive.
  9. Multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools used with consent mechanisms.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Hugo, a modern static site generator, delivering fast performance and excellent SEO optimization. It uses Cloudflare for DNS management, though hosting provider details are not explicit. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. The tech stack includes modern web fonts, video content, and JSON-LD structured data for rich search engine results. The use of multiple analytics and marketing scripts is balanced with privacy controls. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust, modern, and well-maintained, supporting a high-quality user experience and scalable content delivery.
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 +2Low24 findingsView report
  2. 79/100 +6Low26 findingsView report
  3. 73/100Medium21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ghost.org. 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.org.

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.