Skip to main content

Security report for haveibeenpwned.com

Have I Been Pwned · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

Have I Been Pwned is a well-established online service founded in 2013 that enables individuals to check if their email addresses have been compromised in data breaches. It holds a strong market position as a leading breach notification platform, offering key services such as email and domain breach searches, password breach checks, notification subscriptions, and API access. The website targets security-conscious individuals and organizations seeking to monitor their exposure to data breaches. Technically, the website employs modern frontend technologies including Bootstrap 5 and Font Awesome, hosted on Azure with Cloudflare DNS and CDN services. However, the site suffers from a critical security shortfall due to the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which severely impacts its security posture and user trust. Performance is moderate with a relatively slow page load time, though mobile optimization and SEO are well addressed. From a security perspective, the site implements SPF and DMARC records with a strict reject policy, reducing email spoofing risks. The absence of HTTPS, HSTS, and other security headers, however, exposes users to potential risks. No explicit security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, limiting transparency in security governance. Overall, while the business model and content quality are strong and trustworthy, the lack of HTTPS and related security best practices significantly lowers the security score and user confidence. Strategic improvements in SSL deployment, security headers, and privacy compliance mechanisms are recommended to enhance the platform's security and compliance posture.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

2 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

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

Keep watching haveibeenpwned.com

This scan found 13 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. 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
100
Security headers
80
Email security
87
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
83

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

Have I Been Pwned operates as a niche cybersecurity service focused on breach notification and password security. Its competitive advantage lies in its extensive breach database and public accessibility. Revenue streams likely include subscription services and API access. The target customer segment includes individual users, security professionals, and organizations monitoring domain breaches. The partnership with 1Password indicates strategic alliances to promote password security tools. The company maintains a consistent brand and professional online presence, supporting growth and user trust. No parent or subsidiary companies are identified, suggesting an independent operation.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate but hampered by critical issues such as the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support. The presence of SPF and DMARC with reject policy is a strong email security measure. However, missing HSTS, OCSP stapling, session resumption, and security headers reduce overall security effectiveness. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response contacts are publicly available, which may hinder timely vulnerability reporting and response. Compliance with GDPR is indicated via a comprehensive privacy policy, but the absence of cookie consent mechanisms is a gap. The security culture appears focused on data breach awareness but needs enhancement in technical security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable all insecure protocols to protect data in transit.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce HTTPS usage.
  4. Correct and properly configure CAA DNS records to restrict certificate issuance to authorized CAs.
  5. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  6. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  7. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  8. Consider implementing a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern frontend stack with Bootstrap 5 and Font Awesome for UI components and icons. Hosting is on Azure with Cloudflare providing DNS and CDN services, ensuring global availability and performance optimization. However, the page load time is slow (~16.8 seconds), indicating potential optimization opportunities in resource loading and caching. Accessibility and SEO are adequately addressed with proper meta tags and responsive design. The absence of a CMS suggests a custom or static site architecture. The use of Microsoft Application Insights and Cloudflare Insights indicates active monitoring and analytics integration. Technical debt is minimal but the lack of HTTPS is a critical risk that must be addressed to avoid operational and reputational damage.
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. 81/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with haveibeenpwned.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 haveibeenpwned.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.