Skip to main content

Security report for linotype.com

MyFonts Inc. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Linotype.com serves as a transitional informational website announcing the migration of Linotype font products to Monotype Fonts and MyFonts.com platforms. The site targets design professionals and agencies seeking font licensing solutions, emphasizing the preservation of Linotype's heritage within the Monotype ecosystem. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including JavaScript widgets for chat and cookie consent, and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics. The website is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and professionally designed, providing a positive user experience. Security posture is moderate; HTTPS is implied but explicit security headers are not detected, and no incident response or security policies are published. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual and lowers domain trustworthiness, but the association with Monotype mitigates concerns. Overall, the site is credible and functional but could improve transparency and security practices.

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

4 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
    • 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 linotype.com

This scan found 20 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
52
Security headers
80
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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

Linotype is a historic and important brand in the typography industry, now fully integrated under Monotype, a major player in font licensing and distribution. The business model focuses on digital font sales and licensing through online platforms, targeting a global audience of design professionals and agencies. The website reflects a medium-sized enterprise with a strong market position due to its legacy and parent company backing. The partnership ecosystem includes Monotype Fonts and MyFonts.com, which handle sales and customer accounts. The site content and branding are consistent and professional, supporting trust and customer retention.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS usage and cookie consent mechanisms. However, the absence of visible security headers and published security or incident response policies indicates room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The lack of WHOIS data is a concern for domain legitimacy but does not directly impact site security. Compliance with GDPR is suggested by the presence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the security posture is adequate for an informational site but should be enhanced for better protection and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish clear terms of service and security incident response policies to improve legal and security transparency.
  3. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data to enhance domain legitimacy and trust.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all users.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure privacy compliance and minimize security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
MyFonts Inc.
Description
Linotype is a historic font foundry brand whose fonts are now available through Monotype Fonts and MyFonts.com. The website informs users about the transition and offers access to the font library and customer support.
Key services
Font licensing, Font sales, Customer support for font products
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, Intercom widget, Google Tag Manager, CookieLaw.org consent script
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by external links to HTTPS sites)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a transitional landing page informing users about Linotype's integration into Monotype platforms.
  2. No forms present on the page; contact is via email link and external contact page.
  3. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly listed on the page.
  4. No social media links detected in the HTML content.
  5. Use of third-party scripts for chat (Intercom) and cookie consent.
  6. No explicit security headers visible in provided data.
  7. No terms of service page found.
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present and linked externally.
  9. Content is professional, clear, and focused on font licensing business.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses standard HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript technologies with integration of third-party services like Intercom for chat and Google Tag Manager for analytics. Cookie consent is managed via a recognized consent management platform. The site is mobile-optimized and loads with moderate performance. No CMS or hosting provider details are evident from the source. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from improved security headers and accessibility enhancements. The absence of server security headers and WHOIS data are technical risks that should be addressed to improve overall site robustness.
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 linotype.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 linotype.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.