Skip to main content

Security report for lgbt.io

Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf · Technology · Iceland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LGBT.io operates as a niche Mastodon social media instance dedicated to serving the LGBT+ community and allies. It provides decentralized social networking services leveraging the open-source Mastodon platform, fostering a moderated and inclusive environment. The platform is community-supported financially via Patreon, LiberaPay, and PayPal, indicating a patronage business model. The website content is well-structured, with clear code of conduct and active moderation staff, reinforcing its community focus and trustworthiness. Technically, the site uses a modern tech stack based on Mastodon with React and JavaScript, hosted likely via Spaceship, Inc. and Bunny.net CDN. The site is mobile-optimized and performs moderately well, though accessibility features are basic. SEO practices are adequately implemented with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. However, some security best practices such as DNSSEC and security headers are missing, and no cookie consent mechanism is present. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections. Content moderation policies are comprehensive, disallowing illegal and explicit content, which enhances safety. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, and cookie consent reduces compliance maturity. The WHOIS data shows privacy protection, which is justified given the community nature of the service, and the domain age supports legitimacy. Overall, LGBT.io presents a trustworthy, community-oriented social media platform with good technical foundations but could improve in privacy compliance and security transparency. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, publishing security and incident response policies, and implementing cookie consent to enhance compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

3 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.

    • 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

  2. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching lgbt.io

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
72
Security headers
75
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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

LGBT.io occupies a specialized market niche within decentralized social media, targeting the LGBT+ community and allies. Its competitive advantage lies in its focused community moderation and inclusive policies. The business model relies on community patronage rather than advertising, aligning with its non-commercial ethos. The platform's longevity since 2013 indicates stable operations and community trust. Partnerships with Patreon, LiberaPay, and PayPal facilitate funding. The absence of large-scale commercial partnerships or subsidiaries suggests a small, community-driven operation. Growth indicators include active user counts and ongoing supporter acknowledgments. The platform's open-source foundation and transparency in moderation contribute positively to its market position.

Security posture

The security posture of LGBT.io is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and domain transfer protections are in place, which are fundamental security measures. However, the lack of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options indicates room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The content moderation policies are robust, explicitly disallowing illegal and harmful content, which reduces risk. The absence of published security policies and incident response contacts limits transparency and preparedness. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the platform demonstrates a responsible security approach but should enhance technical controls and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to harden the web application.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  5. Regularly audit and update moderation policies and technical infrastructure to maintain security and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Description
We are a Mastodon instance for LGBT+ and allies providing decentralized social media services.
Key services
Mastodon social networking, Community moderation, Content hosting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon, React, JavaScript, CSS, SVG
Frameworks
Glitch-soc fork of Mastodon
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status
  • Content moderation policies

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a Mastodon social media instance focused on LGBT+ community and allies.
  2. Content is accessible and well structured with clear moderation policies.
  3. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts published.
  4. No cookie consent or terms of service found.
  5. WHOIS data shows privacy protection with a reputable registrar and domain age consistent with service longevity.
  6. No advertising or tracking services detected.
  7. Technical stack is modern and based on Mastodon open source software.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack centered around the Mastodon platform, utilizing React and JavaScript for frontend interactivity. The use of SVG logos and responsive design indicates attention to modern web standards. Hosting appears to be via Spaceship, Inc. with CDN services from Bunny.net, supporting performance and availability. The site loads multiple chunked JavaScript and CSS files with integrity hashes, indicating good deployment practices. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers suggests some technical debt in security hardening. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. Accessibility is basic, with potential for improvement in ARIA roles and keyboard navigation. SEO is well addressed with meta tags and Open Graph data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and accessibility 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 lgbt.io. 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 lgbt.io.

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.