Skip to main content

Security report for github.io

Redirects to docs.github.com; the website checks ran on that page, the DNS and email checks on github.io.

GitHub Inc. · Technology · United States

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in Email security.

Security score

93/100

Risk levelLow

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

GitHub Inc. operates the GitHub Pages service, enabling users to host static websites directly from GitHub repositories without separate hosting. Positioned as a leading platform in developer tools and collaboration, GitHub integrates website hosting with its core repository services, targeting developers, organizations, and individuals. The website content is professionally crafted, comprehensive, and well-structured, reflecting GitHub's enterprise-grade service offerings and strong market presence. Technically, the site leverages modern frameworks such as Next.js and Jekyll, ensuring fast performance, excellent mobile optimization, and accessibility compliance. Security is robust with enforced HTTPS, multiple security headers, and no detected vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy policies and terms of service are clearly linked, supporting GDPR compliance, although explicit cookie consent mechanisms and dedicated security policy pages are absent. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure and trustworthy business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
75/ 100 · Medium
GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

      There is no DMARC record at _dmarc.github.io, so receivers have no instruction for mail that fails SPF and DKIM.

      What to do: Publish a TXT record at _dmarc.github.io, starting with "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@github.io" and moving to p=quarantine or p=reject once reports look clean.

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

Keep watching github.io

This scan found 9 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
97
Security headers
87
Email security
75
DNS health
97
Network security
100
Website hygiene
95
GDPR outside view
100
Average
93

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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 github.io, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
74,446
Employees
1
Customers
72,304
Third parties
2,141
Weak passwords
26%

Latest record dated 2026-10-06 · 10,468 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 github.io.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • sa•••@sasismene.github.iosasismene.github.io2026-10-06

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

GitHub's market position as a dominant code hosting and collaboration platform is reinforced by its integrated GitHub Pages service, which simplifies static website hosting for its user base. The business model focuses on platform services, including free and paid tiers, with GitHub Pages available across multiple plans. Revenue streams likely include paid subscriptions and enterprise offerings. The target audience spans individual developers, teams, and enterprises. GitHub's parent company, Microsoft, provides additional market strength and resources. The documentation site supports user engagement through community discussions and support links, fostering a strong ecosystem. Strategic partnerships and integrations with tools like Jekyll and GitHub Actions enhance service value. The absence of direct contact emails suggests a preference for managed support channels and community-driven assistance.

Security posture

The website exhibits a strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and comprehensive security headers implemented. No exposed sensitive information or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of a dedicated security policy page and incident response contact details limits transparency for security researchers and users. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, which are recommended best practices. Privacy compliance is well addressed through accessible privacy and terms pages, but cookie consent mechanisms could be improved. Overall, the site aligns with enterprise security standards but could enhance its security communication and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a clear cookie consent banner to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and incident response procedures.
  3. Provide explicit contact channels for security incidents, such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy and a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance transparency by including direct company contact information for business and security inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GitHub Inc.
Description
GitHub Pages turns any GitHub repository into a live website—no separate hosting required.
Key services
GitHub Pages site hosting, Jekyll static site generator integration, Custom domain configuration, HTTPS security for sites, GitHub Actions workflows for publishing
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React (Next.js), JavaScript, CSS, GitHub Actions, Jekyll
Frameworks
Next.js, Jekyll
Platforms
GitHub Pages, GitHub Enterprise Server, GitHub Enterprise Cloud
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure cookie handling
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive, well-structured, and professionally presented.
  3. Strong use of HTTPS and security headers enhances security posture.
  4. Privacy and terms of service policies are clearly linked and accessible.
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via support links and community forums.
  6. No advertising or tracking scripts detected in the HTML content.
  7. Technical stack is modern and optimized for performance and accessibility.
  8. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data detected in the analyzed content.
Technical notes

Notes

The site is built using modern web technologies including React with Next.js for server-side rendering and Jekyll for static site generation. It is hosted on GitHub infrastructure, likely backed by Microsoft Azure, ensuring high availability and performance. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with valid HTML and CSS. Performance is fast with preloading of CSS and deferred JavaScript loading. SEO is well supported with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. No technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. The technical implementation supports a scalable and maintainable documentation platform aligned with enterprise standards.
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. 84/100Low22 findingsView report
  2. 84/100 +11Low22 findingsView report
  3. 73/100Medium28 findingsView report
  4. 73/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with github.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 github.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.