Skip to main content

Security report for jsoncompare.com

JSON Compare Tool · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

JSON Compare Tool operates as a specialized online utility providing JSON file comparison, formatting, and validation services primarily targeting developers and technical users. The website offers real-time diff highlighting, file upload support, and export functionality, positioning itself as a niche but useful tool in the developer ecosystem. The business model appears to be free access supported by advertising revenue, with no evident subscription or paid tiers. The domain is well-established since 2017, indicating a stable presence in its market niche. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including the Monaco Editor for code editing, React-based UI components, and Cloudflare for DNS and likely CDN services. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO and accessibility basics, though some advanced accessibility features are not evident. Performance is moderate, with external dependencies on advertising and analytics scripts. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses clientTransferProhibited domain status to prevent unauthorized transfers. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options or Content-Security-Policy are not clearly present in the HTML. No sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies and lack of consent mechanisms. Contact and incident response information are not provided, limiting transparency. Overall, the site is a functional and legitimate developer tool with moderate security posture and technical maturity. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and transparency would enhance trust and compliance. The absence of contact and policy pages is a notable gap for user assurance and regulatory adherence.

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 jsoncompare.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. 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
67

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

JSON Compare Tool occupies a niche market segment focused on developer utilities for JSON data handling. Its competitive advantage lies in offering a free, easy-to-use online interface with real-time diff visualization and validation features. The business model relies on advertising networks such as BuySellAds and Google AdSense, supplemented by minimal user tracking via Plausible Analytics. Target customers are developers, QA engineers, and technical professionals needing quick JSON comparison without installing software. Growth indicators include domain age and consistent service availability since 2017. The partnership ecosystem includes advertising and analytics providers but no evident strategic business partners or subsidiaries. The company operates as a small entity with no disclosed parent or subsidiary companies.

Security posture

The security maturity of JSON Compare Tool is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring encrypted communications. The domain status clientTransferProhibited adds a layer of domain security. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which could improve DNS security. The site lacks explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and Content-Security-Policy, which are recommended to mitigate clickjacking and content injection risks. No privacy or cookie policies are published, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and similar regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, limiting user confidence in security responsiveness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Overall, the site follows basic security best practices but should enhance policy transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to obtain user consent for tracking and advertising.
  4. Add security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Content-Security-Policy.
  5. Create and publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve incident response transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
JSON Compare Tool
Description
Best JSON comparison tool for comparing, analyzing, and validating JSON files online
Key services
JSON file comparison, Real-time diff highlighting, JSON validation, File upload support, Dark mode support, Export functionality
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Monaco Editor, Cloudflare DNS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of clientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
BuySellAds, Google AdSense
Tracking pixels
Plausible Analytics, Google DoubleClick
Marketing tools
BuySellAds, Plausible Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a specialized online tool for JSON comparison and validation
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found on main page
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided
  4. Uses modern JavaScript editor (Monaco) for UI
  5. Includes advertising scripts and analytics with minimal tracking
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present
  7. Domain is well aged and registered with reputable registrar
  8. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack with the Monaco Editor for JSON editing and React-based UI components. Hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare, providing CDN and security benefits. External dependencies include advertising scripts from BuySellAds and Google AdSense, and analytics via Plausible Analytics. The site is mobile optimized and includes SEO best practices with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with some overhead from advertising scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is no detected CMS, indicating a custom or static site architecture. Technical risks include reliance on third-party ad and tracking scripts and lack of DNSSEC. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy features.
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 jsoncompare.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 jsoncompare.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.