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 leading global news media organization founded in 1851, providing comprehensive news coverage, investigative journalism, opinion, video content, and specialized services such as cooking and sports. The company operates a subscription-based business model with advertising revenue streams, targeting a broad general audience interested in current events and quality journalism. The website demonstrates a mature and modern technical infrastructure, leveraging React, Datadog, Sentry, and custom privacy management tools to deliver a fast, accessible, and SEO-optimized user experience across web and mobile platforms. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, robust security headers, and active monitoring tools, although explicit incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure policies are not publicly evident. Overall, the site is highly professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations including GDPR, supported by clear ethical journalism and diversity policies.

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 holds a dominant market position in the media sector, with a diversified portfolio including NYT Cooking, Wirecutter, and The Athletic. Its competitive advantage lies in its brand legacy, quality content, and digital transformation embracing modern web technologies and data analytics. Revenue is driven by subscriptions and advertising, with a global audience spanning over 150 countries. The company maintains a strong partnership ecosystem and invests in A/B testing and user experience optimization. Growth indicators include continuous innovation in content delivery and expansion into niche verticals. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining trust, transparency, and compliance in an evolving regulatory landscape.

Security posture

The New York Times exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and integration of monitoring tools like Sentry and Datadog. Privacy compliance is managed through Fides consent management and adherence to GDPR principles. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. However, the absence of publicly available incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests room for improvement in transparency and community engagement. The security culture appears proactive, leveraging modern tools and frameworks to mitigate risks and ensure data protection.

Recommendations

  1. Publish explicit incident response and abuse contact information to improve transparency and facilitate security reporting.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible vulnerability reporting.
  3. Enhance documentation and communication of data retention policies to strengthen privacy compliance and user trust.
  4. Continue investment in accessibility improvements to maintain high standards for diverse user groups.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to minimize potential vulnerabilities and performance impacts.
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, Podcasts, Cooking content (NYT Cooking), Product reviews (Wirecutter), Sports coverage (The Athletic)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Datadog RUM (Real User Monitoring), Sentry (Error tracking), Abra (A/B testing), Fides (Privacy and consent management), Google reCAPTCHA, Fastly (CDN), GraphQL API, Custom video player (Betamax)
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
  • Privacy consent management via Fides
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation
  • No exposed sensitive data detected in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Datadog RUM, Sentry, Google Analytics (implied)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
MediaNet
Tracking pixels
Datadog RUM, Sentry, Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Abra (A/B testing), Datadog, Sentry
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained news media site with extensive content.
  2. Strong use of modern web technologies and analytics.
  3. Clear privacy and ethical journalism policies published.
  4. No signs of blocking or WAF interference.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage HTML.
  6. Multiple trusted social media profiles linked.
  7. Robust security headers and HTTPS enforced.
  8. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy management scripts present.
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a modern technology stack centered on React for frontend rendering, supported by robust analytics and monitoring tools including Datadog RUM and Sentry. The infrastructure is hosted on AWS with Fastly CDN for global content delivery, ensuring fast performance and scalability. Privacy and consent management are handled via Fides scripts, integrating with GDPR and GPP frameworks. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with comprehensive SEO metadata and structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine visibility. Technical risks are minimal, with no outdated or vulnerable libraries detected. Opportunities exist to further streamline scripts and enhance incident response capabilities.
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.