Skip to main content

Security report for medium.com

Medium · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Medium is a well-established online publishing platform founded in 1998, offering a space for users to read, write, and share stories and ideas. It operates a membership subscription model alongside advertising, targeting a broad general audience interested in insightful and diverse content. The platform is recognized for its high-quality content and consistent branding, positioning itself as a leader in the digital media space. Technically, Medium employs a modern React-based tech stack, integrates advanced services like Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for security, and uses reputable payment gateways such as Braintree and PayPal. The website is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security-wise, Medium enforces HTTPS, uses bot protection, and avoids exposing sensitive data, though it could improve by enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit security policies. Overall, the site demonstrates strong privacy compliance with comprehensive policies and consent mechanisms. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting its legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing DNS security, publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy, and adding incident response contacts to further strengthen trust and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 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 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 medium.com

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
70
Email security
65
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

Medium's market position as a leading content platform is supported by its large user base and diversified revenue streams including memberships and advertising. Its competitive advantage lies in its curated content ecosystem and ease of use for writers and readers. The business model focuses on content creation and consumption, monetized through subscriptions and ads. Partnerships with payment processors and text-to-speech services enhance its offerings. The company targets a general audience interested in knowledge and storytelling, with a strong presence in the media sector. Growth indicators include continuous platform enhancements and integration of advanced analytics and marketing tools. The partnership ecosystem includes major players like Google, PayPal, and Braintree, reflecting a robust operational framework.

Security posture

Medium exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise to mitigate automated abuse, and secure payment integrations. The absence of DNSSEC is a minor gap, and no explicit security headers were found in the HTML, though they may be set server-side. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response contact, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Privacy compliance is strong with clear policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, Medium maintains a secure environment appropriate for its business scale and industry.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen domain name system security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Implement and publicly disclose a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Verify and explicitly set security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Continue monitoring and updating third-party libraries and integrations to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Medium
Description
On Medium, anyone can share insightful perspectives, useful knowledge, and life wisdom with the world.
Key services
Online publishing, Content hosting, Membership subscriptions, Advertising platform
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Fela CSS-in-JS, Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Braintree payment gateway, PayPal SDK, Algolia search
Frameworks
React
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot protection
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure payment gateways (Braintree, PayPal)
  • Client-side scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Datadog RUM
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Datadog RUM
Marketing tools
Google Ads, Datadog
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with strong SSL configuration
  2. Content is rich and professionally presented
  3. Multiple external trusted services integrated (Google, PayPal, Braintree)
  4. Privacy and terms policies are clearly linked and comprehensive
  5. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious content
  6. No contact phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly listed
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts found
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  9. Domain DNSSEC not enabled, which is a minor security gap
Technical notes

Notes

Medium's technical infrastructure is built on a modern React framework with CSS-in-JS styling (Fela), leveraging cloud services for hosting and CDN via Cloudflare. The site integrates multiple third-party services including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Braintree, PayPal, and Algolia for search. Performance is optimized with asynchronous script loading and preconnect hints. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well addressed, ensuring a broad user reach. The platform appears custom-built rather than using a standard CMS, indicating significant technical investment. Opportunities exist to enhance DNS security and formalize security headers and policies to reduce technical risks.
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. 79/100Low21 findingsView report
  2. 79/100 +1Low21 findingsView report
  3. 78/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with medium.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 medium.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.