Skip to main content

Security report for last.fm

Last.fm · Media · United Kingdom

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Last.fm is a well-established online music streaming and discovery platform owned by CBS Interactive. It offers a comprehensive music service with a large user base and extensive catalog, targeting music enthusiasts globally. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality and user experience, supporting multiple languages and integrating popular music services such as Apple Music and YouTube. Technically, the site employs modern JavaScript frameworks, performance monitoring via New Relic, and robust consent management tools, ensuring good performance and compliance with privacy regulations. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement and security headers, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly disclosed. Overall, the domain registration and business information align well, indicating a trustworthy and credible online presence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of last.fm. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

      Prevents MIME type sniffing

      What to do: Add "X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff"

      • CAPEC-209
      • ASVS V3.4.4
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
    • Medium

      Missing X-XSS-Protection header

      Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

      What to do: Add "X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block"

    • Medium

      Missing Permissions-Policy header

      Controls browser features and APIs

      What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access

      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Permissions-Policy: accelerometer=(), autoplay=(), camera=(), cross-origin-isolated=(),…
  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

      Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

      What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights

  3. 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.

    • Medium

      DMARC not enforcing

      DMARC policy is set to "none"

      What to do: Gradually move to "quarantine" then "reject" policy

Keep watching last.fm

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
90
Security headers
55
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
81

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 last.fm, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
441,077
Employees
0
Customers
441,031
Third parties
46
Weak passwords
11%

203 subdomains 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 last.fm.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Last.fm operates in the media and technology sectors, leveraging a freemium business model focused on music streaming and personalized recommendations. Its market position is strong as a leading music discovery platform with a history dating back to 2002. The company benefits from its parent company CBS Interactive's resources and infrastructure. Partnerships with Apple Music and YouTube enhance its service offerings. The website's multilingual support and comprehensive policies reflect a mature digital presence catering to a global audience. Trust signals include consistent branding, privacy compliance, and integration with recognized ad and analytics networks.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and monitoring via New Relic. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy page and incident response contact details suggests room for improvement in transparency and readiness. The use of third-party scripts is managed with consent mechanisms, reducing privacy risks. Overall, the security measures align with industry best practices for a media platform of this scale.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and controls.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly review third-party scripts and dependencies for vulnerabilities and update accordingly.
  5. Enhance transparency on data retention policies and user data handling to strengthen privacy compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Last.fm
Description
The world's largest online music service. Listen online, find out more about your favourite artists, and get music recommendations, only at Last.fm
Key services
Music streaming, Music recommendations, Artist discovery, User music profiles
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, RequireJS, New Relic monitoring, HTML5, CSS3, Apple Music integration, YouTube API
Frameworks
RequireJS
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of CSP
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of New Relic for monitoring

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic, Tealium
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
New Relic, Tealium
Marketing tools
Tealium, OneTrust Consent Management
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms are implemented.
  3. Use of modern web technologies and performance monitoring tools.
  4. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response contact publicly available.
  6. Strong brand presence and consistent business information.
  7. Use of multiple third-party ad and analytics services with consent management.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based tech stack with RequireJS for module loading and New Relic for performance and error monitoring. It integrates third-party services including Google DoubleClick for advertising, Tealium for tag management, and OneTrust for consent management. The site is optimized for mobile devices and employs SEO best practices with comprehensive meta tags and structured data. Hosting appears to be managed by CBS Interactive or associated cloud providers. Performance is fast with asynchronous script loading and resource prefetching. Accessibility features are present but could be further enhanced with explicit ARIA roles and landmarks.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 81/100 +5Low27 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with last.fm. 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 last.fm.

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.