Skip to main content

Security report for leaflet.pub

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Leaflet is a technology platform focused on enabling users to write and share interconnected social documents. The website positions itself as a niche content creation and publishing platform, targeting general audiences interested in blogging and publication exploration. The platform leverages modern web technologies such as React and Next.js, indicating a contemporary technical infrastructure. The site design is professional and mobile-optimized, providing a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content. However, the absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies suggests room for improvement in compliance and transparency. Security posture is moderate with no explicit security headers detected and unknown SSL configuration, which should be addressed to enhance trust and protection. Overall, the domain uses privacy protection for WHOIS data, which is common for small tech platforms but slightly reduces transparency. Strategic recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear contact and incident response information to improve compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

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

Keep watching leaflet.pub

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. 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
40
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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

Leaflet operates in the technology sector as a small-sized platform offering document writing and social publishing services. Its business model revolves around user-generated content and community engagement through publications. The platform's market position is niche, focusing on interconnected social documents rather than broad social media or blogging services. There is no evidence of partnerships, subsidiaries, or parent companies from the data provided. The lack of explicit business contact information and policies may limit its appeal to enterprise clients but suits individual content creators and small communities. Growth potential exists if the platform expands features and improves compliance and security transparency. No advertising or affiliate programs were detected, indicating a focus on organic growth and user engagement.

Security posture

The security maturity of Leaflet is moderate. The site is accessible over HTTPS (implied by modern frameworks and manifest usage), but no explicit security headers were found in the provided data, which is a gap in best practices. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries from the HTML content, but a formal security audit is recommended. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR and similar regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not visible, which could hinder timely handling of security issues. The use of WHOIS privacy protection is standard but reduces transparency. Overall, the platform should prioritize implementing security headers, publishing compliance documents, and establishing incident response contacts to strengthen its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Add visible contact information and incident response channels for security issues.
  4. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any vulnerable libraries or exposed data.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing registrant or company information where possible.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
tiny interconnected social documents
Key services
writing and sharing documents, starting publications, exploring publications
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Next.js, React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses detected in the content.
  4. No social media links or external marketing/advertising services detected.
  5. Website uses modern React and Next.js frameworks with asynchronous JavaScript loading.
  6. Content focuses on document writing, publishing, and exploring publications.
  7. No explicit or adult content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
  8. WHOIS data is privacy protected with no public registrant information.
  9. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL status unknown.
  10. No forms with identifiable fields for contact or data collection found in the homepage HTML.
Technical notes

Notes

Leaflet uses a modern technical stack based on React and Next.js, supporting asynchronous JavaScript and responsive design. The site loads multiple JavaScript chunks and CSS files, indicating modular and scalable architecture. Fonts are preloaded for performance optimization. However, no CMS or hosting provider information is explicitly detected. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization but basic accessibility and SEO features. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking services, which may be intentional for privacy. The site lacks structured data markup such as JSON-LD or Open Graph tags, which could improve SEO and social sharing. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced SEO and accessibility improvements.
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 leaflet.pub. 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 leaflet.pub.

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.