Skip to main content

Security report for monster.com

Monster · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Monster.com is a leading online job search and recruitment platform dedicated to connecting job seekers with relevant career opportunities and providing employers with hiring resources. The website offers a comprehensive job search engine, career advice, resume upload capabilities, and employer services, positioning itself as a major player in the employment technology sector. The platform targets both job seekers and employers, leveraging modern web technologies such as Gatsby and React to deliver a responsive and user-friendly experience. However, the site currently lacks a valid SSL certificate, which significantly impacts its security posture and user trust. While security headers are properly configured, the absence of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols presents a critical vulnerability. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a clear privacy policy, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism is detected. Overall, Monster.com demonstrates strong business credibility and content quality but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS security to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

3 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 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 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 monster.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
50
Security headers
60
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
65

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

Monster operates in the technology sector focusing on online recruitment and job search services. Its business model revolves around providing a platform for job seekers to find employment and for employers to post jobs and access hiring resources. The company maintains partnerships with resume services like TopResume and has a broad international presence through multiple localized domains. The platform's revenue streams likely include job posting fees, premium employer services, and affiliate partnerships. The target customer segments include individual job seekers, recent graduates, and employers across various industries. The company's strategic positioning as a comprehensive career resource is supported by extensive content, social media engagement, and structured data markup enhancing SEO. Growth indicators include continuous technology adoption and integration of anti-bot services like DataDome. The partnership ecosystem includes resume writing and hiring service providers, reinforcing its market presence.

Security posture

The security posture of Monster.com is moderate but with critical gaps. The site employs several security headers such as HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy, which are positive indicators of security best practices. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is severely lacking, with no valid certificate detected and no TLS protocols enabled, exposing users to potential man-in-the-middle attacks and data interception risks. The absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption further weakens the SSL implementation. No explicit incident response or security policy information is found on the site, indicating a potential gap in transparency and readiness. The presence of DataDome suggests some level of bot mitigation. Overall, while some security best practices are implemented, the lack of HTTPS is a critical vulnerability that must be addressed immediately to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and configure modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and strong cipher suites.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  4. Introduce a clear cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan to enhance transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern frontend technologies including Gatsby (a React-based static site generator) and React, indicating a modern and scalable architecture. Hosting is via Amazon CloudFront CDN, providing global content delivery. The site includes structured data in JSON-LD format for organization and website schema, enhancing SEO and discoverability. Performance data is missing, but the presence of multiple preloaded scripts and fonts suggests potential for optimization. Accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA attributes are present, indicating good accessibility practices. However, the lack of valid SSL and TLS support is a significant technical risk. The site integrates third-party services like DataDome for bot protection and partners with resume and hiring service providers. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires security enhancements and performance monitoring.
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 monster.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 monster.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.