Skip to main content

Security report for jonaharagon.com

Jonah Aragon · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jonah Aragon is an independent content creator focusing on data privacy, digital rights, and cybersecurity education through blog posts and YouTube videos. The website serves as a personal brand platform offering educational content, a newsletter subscription, and a tip/donation mechanism. The market position is that of a niche privacy advocate and educator with a small but engaged audience. Technically, the site is built on the Ghost CMS platform, uses modern web technologies, and includes structured data for SEO. Performance and mobile optimization are good, though some security best practices like security headers and explicit privacy policies are missing. The security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but the absence of privacy and cookie policies and missing WHOIS data reduce trust. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy in content but would benefit from improved compliance and transparency. Strategic recommendations include publishing privacy and cookie policies, adding security headers, and clarifying domain registration details.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

5 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching jonaharagon.com

This scan found 22 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
69

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

The website targets privacy-conscious individuals interested in cybersecurity and digital rights. Revenue streams likely include donations via the tip platform and sales through the linked shop. The business model is content-driven with a focus on education and advocacy. The site leverages partnerships with tip processing services and maintains a presence on multiple social media platforms to expand reach. Growth indicators include regular content updates and active community engagement. The lack of formal business registration details and WHOIS transparency suggests a sole proprietorship or personal brand rather than a corporate entity. The partnership ecosystem includes privacy-focused blogs and tip platforms, reinforcing the niche positioning.

Security posture

The site demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and no exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which limits transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies and lack of GDPR indicators. The site does not collect sensitive user data via forms beyond newsletter subscription, reducing risk. Overall, the security culture appears informal but conscientious, with room for improvement in formal policies and headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  3. Add explicit contact information and incident response channels for security issues.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Clarify domain registration details and ensure WHOIS information is accurate and publicly available.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jonah Aragon
Description
I write about data privacy, digital rights, and cybersecurity. I also make videos on YouTube.
Key services
blog posts on data privacy and cybersecurity, video content on YouTube, newsletter subscription, tips/donations, online shop
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Ghost CMS, JavaScript, CSS, HTML5, JSON-LD, Stripe (payment processing), Sodo Search, Triplebit analytics
Frameworks
Ghost
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of authorization endpoint (IndieAuth)
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Triplebit analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Triplebit analytics
Transparency
basic

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 detected.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on site.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on site.
  4. Social media presence is strong with multiple verified platforms linked.
  5. Site uses modern CMS (Ghost) and includes structured data for SEO.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; HTTPS is used.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  9. Content is focused on privacy, cybersecurity, and digital rights education.
  10. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered, which is unusual.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Ghost CMS platform, leveraging modern HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript technologies. It uses JSON-LD structured data for SEO and integrates third-party services such as Stripe for payments and Triplebit for analytics. The site loads external scripts asynchronously and defers non-critical scripts to optimize performance. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well addressed. However, the site lacks some security headers and explicit privacy compliance features. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained with minor areas for enhancement in security and compliance.
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 jonaharagon.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 jonaharagon.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.