Skip to main content

Security report for mix.com

Mix · Technology · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Mix.com is a well-established content curation and personalized web discovery platform founded in 1991, operating primarily in the technology sector. The website targets a general audience interested in discovering personalized web content and has a medium-sized user base with over 141,856 curators. The platform leverages modern web technologies including React and Next.js, and integrates with major social login providers such as Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google. Hosting is provided via Amazon AWS, ensuring reliable infrastructure and fast performance. The site is mobile optimized and employs various analytics and marketing tools to enhance user engagement and track performance. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, though some security headers and explicit policies are not publicly visible. The domain registration is consistent and long-standing, reinforcing business legitimacy. However, the absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies, as well as a public security policy or incident response contact, represents areas for improvement. Overall, Mix.com presents a professional, secure, and user-friendly platform with room to enhance privacy compliance and transparency.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

7 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"

    • 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

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

Keep watching mix.com

This scan found 23 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
95
Security headers
20
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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

Mix.com operates as a content curation platform that personalizes web content discovery for its users. Its business model revolves around user-generated curation and social login authentication, enabling users to save and share web content. The platform's market position is solid with a significant user base and integration with major social media and authentication providers. Revenue streams likely include advertising and partnerships with content providers. The company targets a broad audience interested in web content discovery and personalization. The technology stack and marketing ecosystem indicate a mature digital presence with ongoing feature experimentation via Statsig. The lack of visible contact information and policies suggests a focus on user experience over direct customer support. Strategic partnerships with major social platforms enhance its reach and credibility.

Security posture

The security posture of Mix.com is robust with HTTPS enforced site-wide and integration of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise to mitigate automated abuse. The use of OAuth social logins adds secure authentication options. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options in the visible HTML is a minor gap. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a public security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and may hinder rapid response to security incidents. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended best practice to protect DNS integrity. Overall, the site demonstrates good security hygiene but could improve in policy transparency and DNS security.

Recommendations

  1. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies on the website.
  2. Implement and expose security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security.
  4. Provide a public security policy and incident response contact information.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Mix
Description
Discover the gems of the web, personalized to you.
Key services
Personalized content discovery, Content curation, Social login authentication
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React (Next.js), Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Reddit Ads Pixel, Airbrake (Error monitoring), Statsig (Feature flags and experimentation)
Frameworks
Next.js, React
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise
  • OAuth social login via Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Segment, Statsig
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, Twitter Ads, Reddit Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Reddit Pixel
Marketing tools
Statsig
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern web technologies and frameworks
  2. Strong integration with major social login providers
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on homepage
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers visible
  5. Good use of analytics and marketing tools
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  7. Domain is well-established and not privacy protected
  8. No adult or NSFW content detected
Technical notes

Notes

Mix.com is built on a modern technology stack featuring React and Next.js, enabling server-side rendering and fast performance. The site uses Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot mitigation and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, Segment, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Tag, and Reddit Pixel. Hosting is inferred to be on Amazon AWS based on DNS servers. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including Open Graph and Twitter Card metadata. Accessibility features are basic but present. The site uses social login forms for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google, indicating a focus on user convenience and security. Performance is fast with preloaded fonts and optimized assets. There is no detected CMS, suggesting a custom or headless architecture. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern, scalable, and well-implemented.
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. 64/100Medium33 findingsView report
  2. 63/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with mix.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 mix.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.