Skip to main content

Security report for nytimes.com

The New York Times · Media · United States

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

Security score

87/100

Risk levelLow

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. Established in 1851, it operates a subscription-based business model complemented by advertising revenue. The company maintains a strong market position as a leading news provider with multiple subsidiaries including NYT Cooking, Wirecutter, and The Athletic. The website reflects a mature digital presence with excellent content quality and user experience tailored for a broad audience. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including React, GraphQL APIs, and advanced analytics and monitoring tools such as Datadog and Sentry. It demonstrates fast performance, mobile optimization, and good accessibility standards. The site integrates sophisticated advertising technologies and consent management frameworks to comply with privacy regulations. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, utilizes security monitoring, and implements consent mechanisms for privacy compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, explicit vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts are not publicly evident, which could be improved. Overall, the website presents a low risk profile with high trustworthiness and professionalism. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around security incident response and vulnerability disclosure to further strengthen user trust and compliance posture.

Scanned

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

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. 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

  2. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching nytimes.com

This scan found 12 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
72
Security headers
90
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
87

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 nytimes.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
103,490
Employees
18
Customers
103,250
Third parties
222
Weak passwords
16%

Latest record dated 2026-06-01 · 152 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 nytimes.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –nytimes.com2026-06-01
  • –myaccount.nytimes.com2026-05-17
  • –nytimes.com2026-01-10
  • –myaccount.nytimes.com2025-10-13
  • –nytimes.com2025-08-19

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

The New York Times operates as an essential media entity with a diversified portfolio of content and services targeting a global audience. Its competitive advantage lies in its brand legacy, quality journalism, and digital innovation. Revenue streams include subscriptions, advertising, and affiliate content. The company leverages partnerships and subsidiaries to expand content verticals and audience reach. Growth indicators include extensive use of analytics and A/B testing to optimize user engagement. The ecosystem includes multiple digital platforms and social media channels, reinforcing its market presence and influence.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is high, with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive monitoring via Sentry and Datadog, and active consent management for privacy compliance. The absence of exposed sensitive data and use of modern security headers indicate adherence to best practices. However, the lack of publicly available vulnerability disclosure policies and incident response contacts suggests room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Compliance with GDPR is indicated through consent mechanisms and privacy policies. Overall, the security posture supports business continuity and user trust effectively.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  2. Provide clear and accessible incident response contact information to improve transparency and user confidence.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance data protection officer contact visibility to comply with GDPR and strengthen privacy governance.
  5. Continue investing in security monitoring and user consent management to maintain compliance and trust.
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 pieces, Video content, Subscription services, Cooking content (NYT Cooking), Product reviews (Wirecutter), Sports coverage (The Athletic)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Sentry (error tracking), Datadog RUM (real user monitoring), Google Tag Manager, Google Publisher Tags (GPT) for ads, Prebid.js (header bidding for ads), Various JavaScript libraries for analytics and ads, GraphQL API usage, Service Workers, CSS Modules
Frameworks
React
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
  • Consent management via Fides
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Datadog RUM, Sentry, Google Analytics (implied), UnifiedTracking (NYT internal)
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ad Manager (GPT), AppNexus, Criteo, MediaNet, Rubicon, OpenX, TripleLift, Pubmatic, Index Exchange
Tracking pixels
Datadog RUM, Sentry, Google Analytics (implied), Alice Rules (NYT internal targeting), Abra (A/B testing)
Marketing tools
Datadog, Sentry, Abra A/B testing
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 advanced technical infrastructure.
  2. Strong brand presence with multiple verified social media accounts and subsidiaries.
  3. Comprehensive privacy and security policies publicly available.
  4. Extensive use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity detected.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to privacy or registry restrictions, but does not impact trust given brand reputation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website's technical infrastructure is robust, leveraging React for frontend rendering and GraphQL for efficient data querying. Performance optimizations include service workers and advanced caching strategies. The use of Datadog and Sentry enables real-time monitoring and error tracking. Advertising technologies are integrated via Prebid.js and Google Ad Manager, supporting monetization while respecting user privacy through consent frameworks. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with SEO best practices evident in metadata and structured data. Opportunities exist to document CMS and hosting details more explicitly and to streamline third-party script management.
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
  2. 87/100 +1Low20 findingsView report
  3. 86/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with nytimes.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 nytimes.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.