Skip to main content

Security report for magnite.com

Magnite · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Magnite is a leading independent sell-side advertising company specializing in programmatic advertising solutions across multiple channels including Connected TV (CTV), streaming, online video, display, and audio. The company serves top media owners and advertisers globally, providing technology and services to optimize advertising revenue and audience targeting. Magnite holds a strong market position as the largest independent sell-side platform with a comprehensive suite of services and recognized industry awards. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and analytics tools integrated, demonstrating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though additional security headers and a public security policy could enhance trust. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, Magnite presents a professional, trustworthy, and technically sound online presence aligned with enterprise standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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 magnite.com

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
47
Security headers
30
Email security
82
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
69

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

Magnite operates in the media and advertising technology sector, targeting media owners and advertisers seeking programmatic solutions. Its business model focuses on enabling publishers to maximize ad revenue while providing buyers with advanced targeting and brand safety. The company leverages partnerships and subsidiaries such as DV+, Streaming, and SpringServe to expand its service offerings. The website content and structure reflect a large enterprise with global reach and a strong emphasis on innovation, client service, and compliance. The presence of investor relations and comprehensive legal pages indicates a publicly accountable and transparent organization. Magnite's ecosystem includes advanced marketing and analytics tools, supporting data-driven decision-making and growth.

Security posture

Magnite's website demonstrates a good security posture with HTTPS enabled and no exposed sensitive information. The use of reputable third-party analytics and marketing scripts is balanced with privacy considerations. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and a public incident response or vulnerability disclosure page suggests room for improvement in transparency and defense-in-depth. No signs of malware or phishing were detected. The WHOIS data is not publicly available, which is common for enterprise domains but reduces transparency. Overall, the security maturity is solid but could benefit from enhanced security policies and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels to ensure compliance with privacy regulations and minimize risk.
  5. Enhance WHOIS transparency if possible or provide clear domain ownership information on the website to build trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Magnite
Description
The world's top publishers trust Magnite to help them drive more advertising revenue across every channel and format, including CTV.
Key services
Advertising revenue optimization, Streaming and CTV advertising, Programmatic advertising, Brand protection, Advanced targeting
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Marketo Munchkin, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Yoast SEO, Swiper.js, WPML (WordPress Multilingual Plugin), SearchWP Live Ajax Search, WordPress
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-conscious third-party scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Rubicon Project (DV+)
Tracking pixels
Marketo Munchkin, LinkedIn Insight, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Marketo, Hotjar
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented with comprehensive business and legal information.
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. Multiple social media and partner links indicate active business ecosystem.
  5. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable publicly, which is common for enterprise domains using privacy protection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager, Marketo, LinkedIn Insight, Hotjar, and Swiper.js for UI components. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. SEO is well implemented with Yoast SEO plugin and structured data (JSON-LD) for rich search results. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, but overall user experience is smooth and professional. The use of multilingual support via WPML indicates a global audience focus. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected, suggesting ongoing maintenance and modernization efforts.
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. 71/100 −2Medium30 findingsView report
  2. 73/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with magnite.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 magnite.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.