Skip to main content

Security report for n2.pm

NotNet · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

NotNet is a small community of friends and developers focused on software and systems development, as indicated by their website content and linked resources. The site serves primarily as an informational hub with links to their home server, Hetzner-hosted server, and code repositories on GitHub and Forgejo. The business model appears community-driven without commercial transactions or extensive service offerings. The website is modest in design and content, reflecting a niche technical audience rather than a broad commercial market. Technically, the website is built with basic HTML, CSS, and SVG graphics, lacking advanced frameworks or CMS platforms. Hosting is partially identified with Hetzner for one server, suggesting some professional infrastructure. Performance and mobile optimization are basic but functional. SEO and accessibility features are minimal, and no analytics or tracking technologies are detected, indicating a privacy-conscious or low-traffic site. From a security perspective, the site lacks visible security headers and formal policies such as privacy, cookie, or terms of service documents. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The domain is secured with HTTPS (assumed from URL), but SSL configuration details are unknown. WHOIS data shows a consistent and legitimate registration since 2019, supporting the site's authenticity. Overall, the security posture is basic with room for improvement in policy transparency and technical safeguards. The overall risk is low given the non-commercial nature and limited data collection, but the absence of privacy and security policies could pose compliance risks if the site evolves. Strategic recommendations include implementing standard security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, adding contact and incident response information, and considering vulnerability disclosure practices to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 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 n2.pm

This scan found 25 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention n2.pm, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for n2.pm right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

NotNet operates as a small-scale developer community without clear commercial revenue streams or extensive market positioning. Its competitive advantage lies in its open-source and community-driven approach, leveraging platforms like GitHub and Forgejo for code collaboration. The target audience is primarily technical users and developers interested in their projects and infrastructure. Growth indicators are limited due to minimal public-facing content and lack of marketing tools. Partnerships with related sites such as notnite.com and hl2.sh suggest a small ecosystem of affiliated projects. The business model is informal and community-centric, focusing on shared development rather than commercial services.

Security posture

The security maturity level of NotNet is basic. The website lacks formal security policies, incident response plans, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. No security headers are detected, and there is no evidence of advanced security frameworks or certifications. The domain registration is consistent and legitimate, but the absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR. Data protection practices are minimal, and no contact channels for security incidents are provided. The security culture appears informal, typical of small community projects. Enhancing security posture would require formalizing policies, implementing technical safeguards, and establishing incident response capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance transparency and comply with GDPR and other data protection regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information and establish incident response procedures to improve security readiness and user trust.
  4. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly review and update SSL/TLS configurations to ensure strong encryption and prevent potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
NotNet
Description
NotNet is a group of friends and developers.
Key services
home server hosting, Hetzner server hosting, GitHub repository hosting, Forgejo repository hosting
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, SVG
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a small developer community site with minimal content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers provided.
  4. No security policies or incident response information available.
  5. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  6. Website uses basic HTML and SVG graphics with minimal styling.
  7. External links point to GitHub, Forgejo, and related community sites.
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  9. WHOIS data shows domain is active and registered since 2019.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using basic web technologies including HTML5, CSS, and SVG for graphics, without reliance on modern JavaScript frameworks or CMS platforms. Hosting is partially identified with Hetzner for one server, indicating some professional infrastructure. The site has moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking technologies, suggesting minimal data collection. The technical implementation is straightforward but could benefit from modernization, improved security headers, and enhanced user experience features to reduce technical debt and improve operational resilience.
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 n2.pm. 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 n2.pm.

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.