Skip to main content

Security report for paywallproject.com

PaywallProject · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

PaywallProject is a specialized service provider offering fully managed WordPress paywall solutions tailored for local news publishers. Their platform simplifies subscription management, enabling publishers to grow their audiences, increase newsletter signups, and convert readers into paying subscribers or donors. The company positions itself as a niche player in the media technology space, focusing on subscription monetization for local news outlets. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and Stackable Gutenberg blocks, integrating Stripe for payment processing. The site demonstrates good design quality, mobile optimization, and SEO practices, although some accessibility features could be improved. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, although the website content and client logos suggest an active business. Overall, the site is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

5 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 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching paywallproject.com

This scan found 19 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
65
Security headers
85
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
71

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

The company targets local news publishers seeking to implement paywalls and subscription management on WordPress sites. Their business model revolves around providing software, hosting, and site management services to facilitate monetization of digital content. The presence of multiple client logos indicates a growing customer base and partnerships within the local news ecosystem. The use of third-party services like Calendly for demos and HelpScout for support suggests a streamlined customer engagement process. However, the lack of publicly available company registration or contact information may limit trust for new customers. The company appears to be a small but focused player in the media technology sector, leveraging WordPress as a platform to deliver specialized paywall solutions.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data in the HTML. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS reduces the overall security robustness. There is no evidence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are important for compliance and trust. The lack of WHOIS data and domain registration transparency further impacts the trustworthiness from a security perspective. The site uses reputable third-party services like Stripe for payments, which adds to transactional security. Overall, while basic security measures are in place, there is room for improvement in formalizing security policies and enhancing technical defenses.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and configure standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies on the website to improve compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents and consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration data to ensure domain legitimacy and improve trust signals.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users and comply with accessibility standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
PaywallProject
Description
PaywallProject is a fully managed WordPress paywall solution that simplifies subscription management, helping publishers grow audiences, increase newsletter signups, and convert readers into paying subscribers or donors—effortlessly.
Key services
WordPress paywall plugin software, Hosting, Site management, Subscription management
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Stackable Ultimate Gutenberg Blocks, Stripe.js, jQuery
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
helpscout.net, plausible.paywallproject.com
Marketing tools
Calendly
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based paywall solution provider targeting local news publishers.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage content.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content.
  5. Multiple client logos and external partner links are displayed, indicating business relationships.
  6. Uses modern WordPress plugins and Stripe for payment integration.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  8. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL is enabled.
  9. Minimal tracking with Plausible Analytics and HelpScout support scripts.
  10. No signs of adult or questionable content; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using well-known plugins such as Yoast SEO for search optimization and Stackable Ultimate Gutenberg Blocks for content layout. Stripe.js is integrated for payment processing, indicating support for subscription payments. The site loads jQuery and jQuery Migrate libraries, which are common but could be reviewed for version currency to avoid vulnerabilities. Performance appears moderate with responsive design and mobile optimization evident. The site uses Plausible Analytics for privacy-focused user tracking and HelpScout for customer support. No hosting provider information was detected. The technical stack is appropriate for the business model but could benefit from updated security configurations and enhanced accessibility compliance.
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 paywallproject.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 paywallproject.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.