Skip to main content

Security report for nyt.net

The New York Times · Media · United States

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and GDPR outside view.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The New York Times is a globally recognized media organization providing comprehensive news coverage, investigative journalism, opinion pieces, and multimedia content. It operates a subscription and advertising-based business model, serving a broad general audience with a focus on U.S. and international news. The company maintains a strong market position as a leading news provider with multiple subsidiary brands including NYT Cooking, Wirecutter, and The Athletic. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as React, GraphQL, and advanced monitoring tools like Datadog and Sentry, ensuring high performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility. Security posture is robust with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and privacy compliance mechanisms including cookie consent and GDPR adherence. However, public contact information for security incident response and vulnerability disclosure is not explicitly provided, representing an area for improvement. Overall, the site demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and content quality, with no indications of adult or questionable content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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

2 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. 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

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

Keep watching nyt.net

This scan found 11 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
90
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
73

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 nyt.net, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
121
Employees
0
Customers
121
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
11%

42 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for nyt.net.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The New York Times leverages a diversified content portfolio and multiple digital platforms to maintain competitive advantage in the media sector. Its revenue streams include subscriptions, advertising, and affiliate content through subsidiaries. The company targets a global audience interested in news, politics, business, technology, and lifestyle content. Strategic partnerships and subsidiaries enhance its market reach and content offerings. The brand's longevity since 1851 and consistent ethical standards reinforce its credibility and market leadership. The technical infrastructure supports scalability and user engagement, positioning the company well for future growth and digital innovation.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and active use of monitoring and error tracking tools. Privacy compliance is well addressed through cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR-aligned policies. However, the absence of publicly available incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure policies limits transparency and may hinder rapid security communication. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The security score is high, reflecting strong adherence to best practices, but improvements in disclosure and contact transparency are recommended to enhance trust and incident management readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security or abuse contact email to facilitate incident reporting and response.
  2. Implement and publicly disclose a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Enhance transparency by providing data protection officer contact details in privacy documentation.
  4. Regularly review and update security headers and monitoring configurations to maintain best practices.
  5. Continue investment in privacy compliance tools and user consent mechanisms to uphold regulatory standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The New York Times
Description
Live news, investigations, opinion, photos and video by the journalists of The New York Times from more than 150 countries around the world. Subscribe for coverage of U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, science, health, arts, sports and more.
Key services
News reporting, Investigative journalism, Opinion articles, Video content, Podcasts, Sports coverage, Cooking content (NYT Cooking), Product reviews (Wirecutter), Sports news (The Athletic)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Datadog RUM for monitoring, Sentry for error tracking, GraphQL API usage, Custom JavaScript frameworks, Fides for privacy compliance, Abra for A/B testing
Frameworks
React, Sentry, Datadog RUM
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Sentry for error monitoring
  • Datadog RUM for performance and error tracking
  • Privacy compliance scripts loaded
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Datadog RUM, Sentry, UnifiedTracking
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
MediaNet
Tracking pixels
Datadog RUM, Sentry, Abra
Marketing tools
Abra A/B testing, Datadog RUM, Sentry
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 rich content and metadata
  2. Strong use of modern web technologies and monitoring tools
  3. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content
  5. No public vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to registry restrictions
  7. High-quality branding and consistent user experience
  8. No adult or questionable content detected
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The New York Times website is built on a modern technology stack including React for frontend rendering, GraphQL APIs for data fetching, and advanced monitoring tools such as Datadog RUM and Sentry for performance and error tracking. The site is hosted likely on AWS infrastructure, ensuring scalability and reliability. Performance is optimized with preloading, module preloading, and efficient asset management. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well implemented, supporting a wide range of devices and user needs. The technical architecture supports a high-quality user experience and robust content delivery, though continuous modernization and technical debt management are advised to sustain performance and security.
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. 87/100Low20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with nyt.net. 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 nyt.net.

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.