Skip to main content

Security report for pixelfed.social

Pixelfed · Technology · Canada

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Pixelfed.social is the original and main instance of the decentralized photo sharing social media platform Pixelfed, operated by the lead developer known as @dansup. The platform offers a federated social media experience focusing on photo posts, albums, filters, and video support, targeting general users interested in privacy-respecting social media alternatives. The website is professionally designed with good content quality and clear navigation, supporting mobile optimization and modern web technologies such as Vue.js and Plyr media player. Hosting and DNS are managed by Cloudflare, ensuring reliable performance and security. The domain is well-established since 2018, consistent with the business history. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protections but lacks DNSSEC and some security headers. There is no explicit public security or incident response policy, and no cookie consent mechanism was detected, which may impact GDPR compliance. The platform enforces community rules prohibiting hate speech, harassment, explicit content, and illegal activities, contributing to a safe user environment. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with enhanced policies and technical controls. The business model centers on providing a decentralized, federated photo sharing service with a strong community focus. The site maintains transparency with contact email and clear rules but lacks some formal compliance disclosures. The platform is positioned as a privacy-conscious alternative to mainstream social media, appealing to users valuing decentralization and open-source principles. Strategic recommendations include implementing cookie consent, enabling DNSSEC, publishing security policies, and adding security headers to strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 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 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 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

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

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

Keep watching pixelfed.social

This scan found 24 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
75
Security headers
50
Email security
35
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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

Pixelfed.social operates as a key player in the decentralized social media space, leveraging the open-source Pixelfed project. Its competitive advantage lies in being the original instance managed by the main developer, which enhances credibility and attracts a dedicated user base. The business model is community-driven, focusing on federated social networking without centralized control. Revenue streams are not explicit but likely rely on donations or community support. The target audience includes privacy-conscious users, photographers, and social media enthusiasts seeking alternatives to commercial platforms. Growth indicators include a substantial user base of over 480K total users and 103K active users. The partnership with pixelfed.org strengthens ecosystem integration. The platform's operations emphasize transparency, user safety, and content moderation, positioning it well within the niche of decentralized social media.

Security posture

The security maturity of pixelfed.social is moderate to good. The site enforces HTTPS and domain transfer restrictions, reducing risks of interception and unauthorized domain changes. However, the absence of DNSSEC leaves some vulnerability to DNS spoofing attacks. No advanced security headers were detected, which could mitigate risks like clickjacking or cross-site scripting. The lack of publicly available security or incident response policies limits transparency and preparedness perception. Community rules address content safety and user conduct but do not substitute formal security governance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the analysis. Overall, the platform demonstrates a baseline security posture suitable for its community-driven model but should enhance technical and policy controls to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement DNSSEC to secure DNS resolution and prevent spoofing.
  2. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish explicit security and incident response policies to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy controls.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and dependencies to avoid vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Pixelfed
Description
The original Pixelfed instance, operated by the main developer @dansup
Key services
Photo Posts, Photo Albums, Photo Filters, Collections, Comments, Hashtags, Likes, Notifications, Shares, Federation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare (DNS and hosting), JavaScript, Vue.js (implied by VueCarousel classes), Plyr (media player library), Bootstrap (CSS framework)
Frameworks
Vue.js
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is the original Pixelfed instance operated by the main developer.
  2. Content is focused on decentralized photo sharing with federation support.
  3. Clear community rules and policies are published.
  4. No signs of adult or malicious content.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected, which may affect GDPR compliance.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies publicly available.
  7. Uses modern web technologies and Cloudflare for hosting and DNS.
  8. WHOIS data is consistent and domain is well-established.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Vue.js for frontend components and Plyr for media playback, combined with Bootstrap for styling. Hosting and DNS services are provided by Cloudflare, ensuring robust infrastructure and performance. The site is mobile optimized and includes SEO-friendly meta tags and Open Graph data for social sharing. However, the absence of DNSSEC and some security headers indicates room for technical security improvements. Performance is moderate with preloading of key images and efficient asset loading. Accessibility is basic but functional. The site does not appear to use a traditional CMS but rather a custom or framework-based solution. Overall, the technical implementation is solid with opportunities for modernization in security and compliance features.
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 pixelfed.social. 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 pixelfed.social.

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.