Skip to main content

Security report for linode.com

Linode · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Linode is a technology company specializing in cloud infrastructure services, targeting developers and businesses requiring cloud hosting solutions. The company is positioned as an established cloud hosting provider with key services including cloud servers and virtual private servers. However, the website content is currently inaccessible, presenting a 403 Forbidden error page served via Akamai's CDN, indicating a security block or access restriction. This limits the ability to fully assess the company's digital presence and compliance. From a technical perspective, the site uses Akamai CDN and basic web fonts but lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support modern TLS protocols, resulting in a weak security posture. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies further reduces compliance confidence. DNS records and domain registration data suggest a legitimate and consistent business presence. Security evaluation reveals critical issues including no HTTPS, no valid SSL certificate, and no visible security best practices beyond basic headers. The site is blocked by a security mechanism, likely a Web Application Firewall, which restricts content access and analysis. This results in a low overall security score and limited visibility into incident response or data protection measures. Overall, the website's inaccessibility and security shortcomings present a significant risk to user trust and compliance. Strategic improvements in SSL deployment, policy transparency, and content accessibility are recommended to enhance security posture and business credibility.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of linode.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching linode.com

This scan found 17 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
66

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

Linode operates in the competitive cloud infrastructure market, providing essential services such as virtual private servers and cloud hosting. Its market positioning as an established provider is supported by the use of enterprise-grade CDN services like Akamai. The business model focuses on infrastructure as a service, targeting developers and enterprises needing scalable cloud solutions. While the domain registration and DNS setup are consistent with a legitimate business, the lack of accessible content and policy documentation limits insight into revenue streams, partnerships, and growth indicators. The absence of visible marketing or analytics tools suggests a minimal digital marketing footprint or restricted access due to security controls.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of support for modern TLS protocols, exposing users to potential interception risks. The presence of HSTS header is noted but not fully enabled, reducing its effectiveness. No advanced security headers or mechanisms such as OCSP stapling, session resumption, or certificate transparency are implemented. The site is protected by a security mechanism (likely a WAF) that blocks access with a 403 Forbidden response, which while providing some protection, also limits transparency and user access. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, indicating potential gaps in security governance and communication.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure communications.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3) and configure strong cipher suites to enhance encryption strength.
  3. Implement full HSTS policy with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce HTTPS usage.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide accessible contact information and incident response channels to support security reporting and customer engagement.
Technical notes

Notes

The website infrastructure leverages Akamai CDN for content delivery, indicating enterprise-level hosting. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent significant technical debt and security risks. The HTML content is minimal and blocked by a 403 Forbidden error, preventing full technical assessment of frontend frameworks, CMS, or analytics tools. DNS records are well configured with multiple A and AAAA records and MX entries for email handling. No CMS or JavaScript frameworks are detected in the provided HTML. Performance metrics are unavailable due to blocked content. Overall, the technical implementation requires modernization and remediation to meet current web security and usability standards.
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. 84/100Low19 findingsView report
  2. 84/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with linode.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 linode.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.