Skip to main content

Security report for projectcounter.org

COUNTER Metrics · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

COUNTER Metrics operates as a global standard provider for usage metrics, primarily serving librarians and publishers. The organization positions itself as a trusted authority in the domain of usage data standards, facilitating consistent and reliable metrics for the information industry. The website reflects a professional and focused business model centered on standard setting and metric delivery, with a target audience of library and publishing professionals worldwide. The digital presence is built on a WordPress platform, leveraging modern SEO and analytics tools to maintain visibility and user engagement. The technical infrastructure includes integrations with Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and CDN services, indicating a mature digital setup with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and some privacy compliance mechanisms like Google Consent Mode implemented, but lacks explicit privacy and cookie policies, security.txt, and detailed contact information for incident response. The absence of WHOIS data transparency slightly impacts trust but is common for privacy reasons. Overall, the website is professional, secure, and credible, though improvements in privacy disclosures and security headers are recommended.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of projectcounter.org. View the latest report

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. 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';…

  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

  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 projectcounter.org

This scan found 27 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
35
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
62

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

COUNTER Metrics holds a strong market position as the global standard for usage metrics, trusted by librarians and publishers. Its business model revolves around providing standardized metrics, likely generating revenue through memberships, certifications, or licensing. The target customer segment is specialized, focusing on information professionals and institutions requiring reliable usage data. The organization appears to be relatively small but influential within its niche. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed on the site, but the presence of social media linkage to ProjectCounter suggests active engagement with the community. Growth indicators include consistent website updates and integration of modern web technologies. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining trust and transparency, especially in data privacy and security compliance, to sustain and grow its market presence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and use of Google Consent Mode for privacy management. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The absence of a security.txt file or dedicated incident response contact channels indicates a gap in formal vulnerability disclosure and incident management readiness. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations is partially addressed through consent mechanisms but lacks comprehensive policy documentation. The security culture appears to be in development, with room for improvement in transparency and formal security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen web security posture.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve incident response readiness.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize potential vulnerabilities and privacy risks.
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 standard
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Font Awesome, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Cloudfront CDN
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google Consent Mode implemented

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel (disabled), Hotjar (disabled)
Marketing tools
Google Consent Mode
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 due to malformed request; no registrar or registrant info extracted.
  3. Website uses modern technologies and is built on WordPress with SEO and analytics integrations.
  4. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. Content is professional, targeted at librarians and publishers, and safe for general audiences.
  8. Google Consent Mode is implemented indicating some privacy compliance effort.
  9. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected in external links or scripts.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing Yoast SEO for search engine optimization and integrating Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for traffic analysis. It employs modern front-end libraries such as jQuery and Slick Carousel, and uses Font Awesome for iconography. Hosting leverages Cloudfront CDN for content delivery, contributing to moderate performance and good mobile responsiveness. The site includes meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced SEO and social media integration. Accessibility features are basic but present. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing security monitoring. Opportunities exist to modernize security configurations and improve privacy compliance documentation to reduce technical debt and enhance user trust.
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. 50/100Medium31 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.