Skip to main content

Security report for ioc.exchange

Identity Protection Service · Technology · United Kingdom

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

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

IOC.exchange is a specialized Mastodon instance serving the InfoSec community, including professionals, hackers, and enthusiasts. It operates as a decentralized social media platform within the Fediverse, emphasizing privacy, security, and community engagement. The platform is hosted primarily on Linode with media assets on AWS S3, reflecting a modern and scalable technical infrastructure. The site is well-maintained with clear administrative contacts and transparent operational costs supported by crowdfunding. Security practices include HTTPS enforcement and a publicly updated warrant canary, demonstrating commitment to user privacy and resistance to law enforcement overreach. However, there is room for improvement in security headers and formal incident response documentation. Overall, IOC.exchange presents a trustworthy and technically sound platform for its niche audience.

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

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 ioc.exchange

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
95
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
80

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 ioc.exchange, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
100
Employees
1
Customers
98
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
5%

Latest record dated 2025-08-04 · 1 subdomain 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 ioc.exchange.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –ioc.exchange2025-08-04

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The platform targets a niche market of InfoSec professionals and enthusiasts, positioning itself as a secure and fast Mastodon instance. Its business model relies on community support via crowdfunding, indicating a non-commercial but sustainable approach. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS aligns with the community's privacy values. The absence of advertising and tracking tools supports a privacy-first ethos. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its specialized focus and transparent security posture. Growth potential depends on community engagement and continued technical reliability.

Security posture

IOC.exchange demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS, a warrant canary, and clear admin contacts for vulnerability reporting. The absence of DNSSEC and security headers are notable gaps that could be exploited. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The platform lacks a formal security.txt file, which could improve vulnerability disclosure processes. Incident response appears informal but accessible via admin contact. Overall, the security culture is strong but could benefit from formalization and additional technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or policy to comply with privacy regulations and improve transparency.
  4. Publish a security.txt file to formalize vulnerability disclosure and incident response.
  5. Develop and document a formal incident response policy to improve readiness and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Identity Protection Service
Description
INDICATORS OF COMPROMISE (IOC) is an InfoSec community within the Fediverse, welcoming newbies, experts, and gurus. It is a decentralized social media instance powered by Mastodon, focused on security and fast performance.
Key services
Mastodon social media hosting, InfoSec community engagement, Media hosting via AWS S3
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon, AWS S3, Linode hosting, Amazon Registrar, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Mastodon
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Warrant canary published
  • No law enforcement backdoors
  • Encryption keys not shared

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Site is a Mastodon instance focused on InfoSec community.
  2. Content is rich and relevant with clear contact and admin info.
  3. No cookie consent mechanism detected.
  4. No explicit terms of service found.
  5. Warrant canary is prominently published and updated monthly.
  6. No security.txt file detected for vulnerability disclosure.
  7. No phone numbers or physical addresses found.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  9. Site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
  10. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Mastodon, a modern open-source decentralized social media platform, hosted on Linode with media assets on AWS S3. The site uses modern JavaScript and CSS with integrity attributes for scripts, indicating attention to security. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The absence of cookie consent and security headers are technical gaps. Overall, the infrastructure is robust and well-maintained with opportunities for 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ioc.exchange. 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 ioc.exchange.

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.