Skip to main content

Security report for historypin.org

Historypin Community Interest Company · Non-profit · N/a

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

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Historypin Community Interest Company operates a well-established online platform dedicated to connecting communities through sharing local history photos and stories. The website presents a professional and user-friendly interface built on AngularJS and jQuery, integrating Google Maps and various third-party services such as AddThis, Google Analytics, and Intercom for enhanced user engagement and analytics. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly stated and GDPR compliant, reflecting a strong commitment to user data protection. However, explicit security policies and headers are not evident, suggesting room for improvement in security transparency. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection, but the website's maturity and consistent branding indicate legitimacy. Overall, the platform serves a niche non-profit sector focused on cultural heritage and community engagement.

Scanned

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

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 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

  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 historypin.org

This scan found 26 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
62
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
66

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

Historypin positions itself as a community-driven platform targeting libraries, archives, museums, and local history enthusiasts. Its business model revolves around user-generated content and curated collections, fostering social connections through shared historical narratives. The platform leverages partnerships with cultural institutions and maintains a presence through its about.historypin.org domain. While revenue streams are not explicit, the non-profit nature suggests funding through grants or donations. The use of modern web technologies and marketing tools indicates a moderate level of digital maturity. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the main site suggests reliance on web forms for communication, which is typical for community platforms.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA on its signup forms, enhancing protection against automated abuse. Cookie consent mechanisms and privacy policies demonstrate compliance with data protection regulations. However, the lack of visible security headers and absence of a published security policy or incident response contact reduce the overall security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The use of multiple third-party scripts necessitates ongoing security audits to mitigate risks. The platform would benefit from publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy and implementing additional HTTP security headers to strengthen its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Improve accessibility compliance to ensure inclusivity and meet modern web standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Historypin Community Interest Company
Description
Historypin is a platform for people to share photos and stories to tell the histories of their local communities.
Key services
Photo and story sharing, Local history collections, Community engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
AngularJS 1.4.5, jQuery 2.1.4, Google Maps API, Intro.js, Select2, Masonry, TinyMCE, AddThis, Google reCAPTCHA, Intercom
Frameworks
AngularJS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by https URL)
  • Google reCAPTCHA on signup form
  • Cookie consent banner
  • Intercom user tracking with hashed user IDs

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Alexa Certify
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
AddThis
Tracking pixels
Alexa Certify
Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed WHOIS response; likely privacy protection in place.
  3. Site uses modern JavaScript frameworks and integrates multiple third-party services.
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly presented and GDPR compliant.
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found on main site; contact via web form.
  6. Security headers and explicit security policies are not visible in provided data.
  7. Site content is safe and appropriate for general audiences.
  8. Analytics and marketing tools are used but with user consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on AngularJS 1.4.5 and jQuery 2.1.4, indicating a somewhat dated but stable technology stack. Integration with Google Maps API, Intro.js, Select2, Masonry, and TinyMCE enriches user experience and functionality. Hosting appears to leverage Amazon CloudFront CDN for content delivery, enhancing performance and scalability. The site demonstrates moderate performance and good mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility features are basic but present. The reliance on multiple third-party scripts for analytics, marketing, and social features introduces potential security and privacy risks that require ongoing management. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the platform's community-focused mission effectively but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security controls.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with historypin.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 historypin.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.