Skip to main content

Security report for journal.fi

Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunta · Education · Finland

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Journal.fi is a Finnish non-profit platform operated by Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunta, providing online hosting and publishing services for approximately 140 Finnish scientific journals and yearbooks. The platform targets researchers, authors, readers, publishers, and funders within the Finnish scientific community, offering multilingual support and a modern web interface based on Open Journal Systems. Technically, the site uses Apache, PHP 7.3, jQuery, and Font Awesome, but lacks a valid SSL certificate and proper HTTPS configuration, which significantly impacts its security posture. The absence of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols exposes users to potential risks, despite the presence of basic security headers like X-Frame-Options. Privacy and cookie policies are present and indicate GDPR compliance, but no contact information or incident response details are publicly available. Overall, the website demonstrates good content quality and usability but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

7 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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

  2. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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';…

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

Keep watching journal.fi

This scan found 23 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
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
58

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

Journal.fi holds a leading position in the Finnish scientific publishing sector as a dedicated platform for open access journals. Its non-profit business model focuses on serving the academic community by providing a centralized, accessible repository for scientific literature. The platform's use of Open Journal Systems aligns with industry standards for academic publishing. The lack of visible contact details and incident response mechanisms may limit direct engagement with users but reflects a focus on content delivery rather than commercial operations. The partnership with Tieteellisten seurain valtuuskunta strengthens its credibility and institutional backing. Growth opportunities include improving security, expanding multilingual capabilities, and enhancing user engagement through additional services.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability for any modern web service. The server uses outdated PHP 7.3 and Apache 2.4.37, which may have unpatched vulnerabilities. Security headers are minimal, with only X-Frame-Options set to SAMEORIGIN. There is no evidence of advanced protections such as HSTS, Content Security Policy, or OCSP stapling. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. While no active vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, the lack of encryption and modern protocols poses significant risks to data confidentiality and integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Upgrade server software and PHP to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  3. Implement comprehensive security headers including HSTS, Content Security Policy, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish clear security policies and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Enhance accessibility and SEO by adding structured data and improving meta tags.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Open Journal Systems 3.2.1.4, running on Apache 2.4.37 with PHP 7.3.33. It uses common web libraries such as jQuery 3.3.1 and Font Awesome 4.7.0, with Google Fonts for typography. The DNS setup includes SPF records but lacks DNSSEC and CAA records, which could improve domain security. The site lacks HTTPS support due to an invalid or missing SSL certificate, and no modern TLS protocols are enabled. Performance metrics are unavailable, but the site appears to have a moderate design quality with basic accessibility features. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but uses ns.tsv.fi nameservers. There is no evidence of analytics or advertising scripts, indicating a focus on content delivery without tracking or monetization.
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 journal.fi. 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 journal.fi.

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.