Skip to main content

Security report for injective.network

Injective · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security and GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Injective Hub is a decentralized finance platform providing a unified interface for staking, governance, wallet management, and auction services within the Injective Protocol ecosystem. The platform targets DeFi users and blockchain enthusiasts seeking access to Injective's DeFi markets and governance mechanisms. The website demonstrates a consistent brand presence and offers key services such as wallet management, staking, governance participation, and ecosystem tools like InjScan and Bridge. Technically, the website is built using modern JavaScript frameworks including Nuxt.js and Vue.js, with Cloudflare DNS and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Clarity integrated. The site performs moderately well with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. However, there is room for improvement in SEO and security headers. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses clientTransferProhibited domain status, which are positive indicators. However, it lacks important security headers and does not provide explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies. No contact information or incident response channels are visible, which could impact user trust and compliance. The domain is recently registered but consistent with the project's launch timeline. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security best practices, and clearer contact and policy disclosures to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

5 findings 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching injective.network

This scan found 18 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
100
Security headers
80
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Injective Hub operates in the competitive DeFi sector, focusing on the Injective Protocol ecosystem. Its business model revolves around providing decentralized financial services including staking, governance, and wallet management. The platform targets crypto investors and DeFi users who require seamless access to Injective's markets and governance tools. The company appears to be a small-sized entity founded recently in 2023, with no parent or subsidiary companies identified. The platform leverages partnerships within the Injective ecosystem, linking to tools like InjScan and Bridge. Growth indicators include integration with multiple ecosystem services and use of modern web technologies. Strategic observations suggest the company should enhance transparency and compliance to strengthen market position and user trust.

Security posture

The current security posture of Injective Hub is moderate. The site uses HTTPS and Cloudflare DNS, which provide a secure foundation. The domain status clientTransferProhibited adds protection against unauthorized transfers. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a notable gap. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, limiting transparency for security researchers. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No contact information for incident response or abuse reporting is provided, which could delay response to security incidents. Overall, while basic security measures are in place, the platform should implement additional controls and policies to enhance its security maturity and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and general inquiries to improve trust and responsiveness.
  5. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Injective
Description
A unified interface for Injective staking, governance, insurance funds and wallets
Key services
Wallet management, Staking, Governance participation, INJ Burn Auction, Ecosystem tools like InjScan and Bridge
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Nuxt.js, Vue.js, Cloudflare DNS, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity
Frameworks
Nuxt.js, Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a decentralized finance platform interface for Injective Protocol.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found in the HTML content.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found on the main page.
  4. Uses modern JavaScript frameworks and tracking tools.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  6. No security headers detected in the HTML content.
  7. Domain is recently registered but consistent with project launch timeline.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected.
  9. External links mostly to related Injective ecosystem tools and analytics providers.
Technical notes

Notes

Injective Hub is built on a modern JavaScript stack using Nuxt.js and Vue.js frameworks, enabling a responsive and dynamic user experience. The site leverages Cloudflare for DNS management, which offers performance and security benefits. Analytics integration includes Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Clarity, supporting user behavior tracking and performance monitoring. The website demonstrates good mobile optimization and basic accessibility, though further improvements could be made. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. The absence of a CMS suggests a custom or framework-based build. Technical risks include missing security headers and lack of DNSSEC, which could be addressed to reduce attack surface and improve resilience.
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 injective.network. 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 injective.network.

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.