Skip to main content

Security report for privacyguides.org

Privacy Guides · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Privacy Guides is a small, non-profit organization founded in 2021 that provides comprehensive privacy and security resources, including tool recommendations, educational content, and a community forum. The website is highly regarded in the privacy community and is recognized by reputable publications. Technically, the site is built using mkdocs and mkdocs-material, delivering fast performance and excellent mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data, though improvements could be made by adding explicit security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and commitment to privacy advocacy.

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

3 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 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

  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 privacyguides.org

This scan found 16 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
85
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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 organization operates a donation-supported, volunteer-driven model focusing on unbiased privacy tool reviews and educational content. It targets privacy-conscious individuals and advocates seeking trustworthy information. The absence of advertisements and affiliate links enhances credibility. The community engagement through forums and open-source contributions strengthens its market position. The lack of public contact information aligns with its privacy-first ethos but may limit direct business communications. The website's presence on multiple social media platforms supports outreach and community building.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and avoids collecting sensitive user data via forms, reducing attack surface. However, the absence of visible security headers like Content-Security-Policy and lack of a cookie consent mechanism indicate areas for enhancement. No public incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies were found, which could be added to improve transparency and readiness. The privacy-protected WHOIS data is consistent with the organization's privacy focus and does not raise immediate concerns. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from formalized policies and additional headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply fully with GDPR and enhance user transparency.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish clear contact information or a dedicated security contact for incident reporting.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  5. Maintain regular audits of third-party dependencies and update documentation to reflect security practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Privacy Guides
Description
Privacy Guides is a not-for-profit, volunteer-run project that hosts online communities and publishes news and recommendations surrounding privacy and security tools, services, and knowledge.
Key services
privacy tool recommendations, privacy and security knowledge base, community forum, news and articles, videos
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
mkdocs, mkdocs-material, Google Fonts, SVG icons, JavaScript for UI interactions
Frameworks
mkdocs-material
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • no exposed sensitive data
  • no forms collecting sensitive personal data

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established privacy advocacy non-profit with strong community engagement.
  2. Content is comprehensive, well-structured, and regularly updated.
  3. No signs of commercial bias or affiliate marketing.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed, consistent with privacy focus.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected, which could be improved for GDPR compliance.
  6. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, typical for privacy-centric organizations.
  7. No security incident or vulnerability disclosure policies found publicly.
  8. No security headers explicitly detected in HTML source; could be enhanced.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern static site generator (mkdocs) with the mkdocs-material theme, ensuring clean, semantic HTML and responsive design. External resources include Google Fonts and SVG icons, contributing to fast load times. The site is well-structured with comprehensive navigation and SEO-friendly metadata. No CMS vulnerabilities are present due to static site architecture. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Performance is fast with excellent mobile optimization and good accessibility features. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and implement cookie consent mechanisms.
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 privacyguides.org. 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 privacyguides.org.

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.