Skip to main content

Security report for projectcounter.org

COUNTER Metrics · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

COUNTER Metrics is a professional organization providing the global standard for usage metrics, primarily serving librarians and publishers. The website positions itself as a trusted source for standardized usage data, supporting the information needs of its target audience. The business model revolves around standardization and industry collaboration, with a focus on delivering reliable metrics. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, leveraging modern tools such as Google Tag Manager and Font Awesome, and is hosted with CDN support for performance. SEO and mobile optimization are well implemented, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and privacy opt-out mechanisms, but lacks some security headers and explicit policies. WHOIS data is unavailable, which impacts domain trust assessment. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced transparency and compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  2. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching projectcounter.org

This scan found 23 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
35
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
50

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 holds a strong market position as the global standard for usage metrics, trusted by librarians and publishers worldwide. Its competitive advantage lies in its recognized standard and industry acceptance. The business model is centered on providing standardized metrics rather than direct commercial services. The target customers are institutions involved in library and publishing sectors. Growth indicators include ongoing updates and active social media presence. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed but includes industry stakeholders. Strategic observations suggest focusing on improving transparency and compliance to strengthen credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and privacy opt-out configurations for analytics. However, the absence of security headers and explicit security policies reduces its security robustness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Compliance with GDPR is implied but not explicitly documented. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but could be improved with formal policies and enhanced technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Consider publishing a security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
COUNTER Metrics
Description
Delivering the standard for usage metrics
Key services
usage metrics standardization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js), Font Awesome, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Cloudfront CDN
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google Consent Mode implemented
  • Privacy opt-out mode configured

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust assessment.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the content.
  5. Website uses modern technologies and standard SEO practices.
  6. Google Analytics and Tag Manager are used with privacy opt-out configured.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. Content is safe and targeted at professional audiences (librarians, publishers).
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform with a modern technology stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Font Awesome icons, and jQuery. It uses a CDN (Cloudfront) for content delivery, contributing to moderate performance. SEO is enhanced with Yoast SEO plugin and proper meta tags. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic and could be improved. The site uses asynchronous loading for analytics scripts to reduce impact on performance. No critical technical debt or risks were identified, but adding security headers and improving accessibility would strengthen the technical posture.
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. 62/100Medium35 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with projectcounter.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 projectcounter.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.