Skip to main content

Security report for gq.com

GQ · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GQ is a prominent men's fashion and lifestyle media brand owned by Condé Nast, offering a wide range of content including style, grooming, fitness, entertainment, lifestyle, news, and politics. The website serves a mature male audience interested in contemporary fashion and culture. The digital infrastructure employs modern web technologies, including JavaScript frameworks, web fonts, and structured data for SEO. Consent management is implemented via Fides, indicating attention to privacy compliance. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS usage and consent mechanisms, but lacks visible advanced security headers. The WHOIS data is unavailable publicly, likely due to privacy protection, which is common for large media brands. Overall, the site is professionally designed, content-rich, and trustworthy, with standard advertising and tracking technologies integrated.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of gq.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…
  2. 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

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

Keep watching gq.com

This scan found 17 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
90
Security headers
25
Email security
87
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
74

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 gq.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
677
Employees
0
Customers
565
Third parties
112
Weak passwords
24%

20 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 gq.com.

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

GQ holds a strong market position as a leading men's fashion and lifestyle publication under the Condé Nast umbrella. Its business model revolves around digital media publishing and advertising revenue. The brand targets men interested in fashion, fitness, and culture, leveraging a broad content portfolio and sister brands for cross-promotion. The presence of multiple partner domains from Condé Nast indicates a robust partnership ecosystem. The site demonstrates high content quality and branding consistency, supporting its credibility and market reach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS and consent management for privacy compliance. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The site uses third-party advertising and analytics scripts, which require ongoing monitoring for vulnerabilities. Incident response and security policies are not publicly disclosed, which is typical for media sites but could be enhanced for transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  2. Publish clear security and incident response policies accessible to users and partners to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and advertising technologies to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
  5. Consider publishing vulnerability disclosure and data protection officer contact information to align with best privacy and security practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GQ
Description
The latest tips and advice for men on style, grooming, fitness, best products, travel destinations and more. Find politics, sports and entertainment news.
Key services
online magazine content, fashion and lifestyle advice, news coverage, advertising platform
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Web fonts (woff2, woff, eot), JSON-LD structured data, Google Publisher Tags, Fides consent management
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by canonical URL
  • Consent management via Fides

Analytics and tracking

Services
Parsely, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Parsely, Fides Consent Management
Marketing tools
Martech by Condé Nast
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional media publication for men's fashion and lifestyle.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and targeted to a mature male audience.
  3. Strong branding consistency with Condé Nast ownership.
  4. Consent management and privacy compliance mechanisms are implemented.
  5. No direct contact information or security policies publicly visible on homepage.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection.
  7. Advertising and tracking technologies are standard for media sites.
  8. No WAF or blocking detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with JavaScript, web fonts, and JSON-LD structured data for SEO. Consent management is handled by Fides, integrated with Condé Nast's martech platform. Advertising is served via Google DoubleClick and other Condé Nast ad services. Performance is moderate with preloading of images and asynchronous script loading. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive images and viewport settings. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. No CMS was explicitly detected, but likely a proprietary or custom solution given the brand scale. Hosting provider details are not visible. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional media publishing platform with standard digital marketing integrations.
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. 74/100Medium25 findingsView report
  2. 74/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gq.com. 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 gq.com.

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.