Skip to main content

Security report for remark.as

Musing Studio · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Remark.as is a specialized commenting platform designed to enhance conversations around Write.as blogs and other websites supporting open web protocols like ActivityPub and Webmentions. It positions itself as a privacy-conscious, human-centric alternative to traditional social media comment systems, emphasizing context and choice in conversation modes. The business operates within the technology sector, under the parent company Musing Studio, and targets bloggers and readers seeking thoughtful engagement tools. Technically, the website uses modern web standards, integrates with the Write.as ecosystem, and employs privacy-respecting analytics (Piwik/Matomo). The site is well-designed, mobile-optimized, and provides clear navigation and content relevant to its niche.

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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching remark.as

This scan found 25 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
95
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
66

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

Remark.as holds a niche market position focused on privacy and thoughtful online conversations, leveraging the Write.as blogging platform ecosystem. Its business model is SaaS-based, offering commenting services with plans to expand protocol support. The company benefits from a small but consistent brand presence, social media engagement on decentralized platforms (Mastodon, Bluesky), and a clear product focus. Partnerships within the Musing Studio suite strengthen its ecosystem integration. The absence of direct contact information and limited policy disclosures suggest a lean operational model with room for growth in transparency and compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers and published security policies or incident response information, which are important for trust and compliance. The use of privacy-conscious analytics is a positive indicator, but the absence of cookie consent mechanisms and terms of service reduces privacy compliance maturity. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by adopting standard security headers, publishing vulnerability disclosure policies, and enhancing GDPR compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive cookie policy with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response plan to increase transparency and preparedness.
  4. Provide clear terms of service to establish legal clarity and user trust.
  5. Consider adding a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Musing Studio
Description
Remark.as is a thoughtful commenting system designed to facilitate better conversations around Write.as blogs and soon any blog or website supporting protocols like ActivityPub and Webmentions. It emphasizes human, contextual, and privacy-respecting interactions rather than social media style engagement.
Key services
Commenting system for Write.as blogs, Future support for ActivityPub and Webmentions, Private and public conversation facilitation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, WebFont Loader, Piwik/Matomo Analytics
Platforms
Write.as ecosystem
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik/Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Piwik/Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is focused on a niche commenting system integrated with Write.as blogging platform.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the page.
  4. Privacy policy is linked but cookie policy and terms of service are missing.
  5. Social media presence includes Mastodon and Bluesky profiles.
  6. Uses Piwik/Matomo analytics, indicating some privacy-conscious tracking.
  7. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  8. No forms detected on the landing page; user interaction via 'Get Started' likely leads to signup pages.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, including WebFont Loader for custom fonts and Piwik/Matomo for analytics. It is integrated within the Write.as ecosystem, likely using WriteFreely as the CMS backend. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. The site uses CDN-hosted assets for efficiency. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries. Technical risks are low but could be further mitigated by adding security headers and improving 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 61/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with remark.as. 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 remark.as.

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.