Skip to main content

Security report for groups.io

Groups.io, Inc. · Technology · France

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Groups.io, Inc. operates a mature and well-established email group and listserv alternative platform, founded in 2010. The company targets a broad audience ranging from small clubs to large global organizations, emphasizing privacy, ad-free experience, and integrated collaboration tools such as calendars, wikis, chat, and file storage. Their market position is strong as a privacy-focused alternative to Google Groups and Yahoo Groups, trusted by reputable institutions like the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The business model is subscription-based with free, premium, and enterprise tiers, supporting scalability and custom domain branding for larger organizations. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript libraries including TinyMCE, Video.js, and HTMX, delivering a responsive and well-structured user experience. While performance is moderate, mobile optimization and SEO practices are good. Accessibility is basic but present. The site lacks some advanced security headers and DNSSEC, which could be improved. The domain is stable and legitimate, registered since 2010 with clientTransferProhibited status, indicating ownership protection. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no tracking or ads, but could be enhanced by adding explicit security headers, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure policies. Privacy compliance is strong with a comprehensive privacy policy and GDPR compliance, though a cookie consent mechanism is missing. Contact is primarily via email support, with no phone numbers or physical addresses publicly listed. Overall, Groups.io presents a trustworthy, professional, and privacy-conscious platform with room for security and compliance improvements. The risk level is low, but strategic enhancements in security transparency and cookie compliance would strengthen trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of groups.io. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

4 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

  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

  3. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching groups.io

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
45
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
70

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Groups.io holds a competitive position in the email group and listserv market by offering a comprehensive, privacy-first collaboration platform. Its subscription-based revenue model supports scalability from small groups to large enterprises. The company leverages partnerships, such as with dgroups.info, and is trusted by global institutions, enhancing its credibility. The platform's integration capabilities with Slack, GitHub, and others indicate a modern ecosystem approach. Growth indicators include over a decade of operation and a diverse customer base. The absence of phone contact suggests a primarily digital support model. Strategic observations include the need to enhance security transparency and cookie compliance to maintain competitive advantage and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The security maturity of Groups.io is moderate to good. HTTPS is enforced, and domain registration protections are in place. The absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security are notable gaps. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which could hinder timely security issue management. The platform avoids ads and tracking, supporting privacy and reducing attack surface. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but would benefit from formalized security policies and enhanced technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Create and make publicly available an incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy, including a security contact email.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Consider obtaining and displaying recognized security certifications to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Groups.io, Inc.
Description
Groups.io is a modern email group service and listserv alternative with no ads. It offers mailing lists with calendars, files, wikis, chat, databases, and group analytics. It targets teams and communities of any size, from small clubs to large organizations.
Key services
Email discussion lists, Calendars, File storage, Wikis, Chat, Databases, Group analytics, Integrations with Slack, Bluesky, GitHub, Trello
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, jQuery, TinyMCE, Video.js, HTMX
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by URL)
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No ads or tracking scripts detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

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 no blocking.
  2. Strong emphasis on privacy and no ads.
  3. Comprehensive feature set for email groups and collaboration.
  4. Trusted by reputable organizations.
  5. No explicit phone numbers found; contact primarily via email and support forms.
  6. No cookie consent banner detected, which may be a compliance gap.
  7. No explicit security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page found.
  8. No social media links except Bluesky profile.
  9. No explicit security certifications displayed.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack including TinyMCE for rich text editing, Video.js for media playback, and HTMX for dynamic content loading. The HTML structure is valid and SEO optimized with appropriate meta tags and language attributes. Performance is moderate, with responsive design and mobile optimization implemented. Accessibility features are basic but present. Hosting provider details are not explicit, and no CMS is detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. The site lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC, which are technical risks. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable service but has opportunities for modernization and security hardening.
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. 75/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with groups.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 groups.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.