Skip to main content

Security report for rtfd.org

Read the Docs, Inc · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Read the Docs, Inc operates a documentation building and hosting platform aimed at developers, providing versioned documentation, integrated search, and pull request previews. The website content is professional and targeted towards a technical audience, positioning itself as an established player in the documentation hosting market. The technical infrastructure is based on the Pelican static site generator and uses modern web technologies including Font Awesome icons. The site demonstrates good design quality and mobile optimization but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies. No blocking or WAF mechanisms were detected, and the site is accessible without restrictions. The WHOIS data for the subdomain is not available, which is typical for subdomains, and does not raise immediate concerns. Overall, the site presents a moderate risk profile with room for improvement in security and privacy 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

7 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

    • 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 rtfd.org

This scan found 26 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
47
Security headers
25
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
63

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 business targets developers and organizations needing documentation hosting and building services. Its business model revolves around providing a platform with key features such as version control and search integration. The company appears to be medium-sized with consistent branding and a clear market position in the technology sector. No direct revenue streams or partnerships were identified from the content provided. The lack of explicit contact information and privacy policies may impact user trust and compliance with regulations such as GDPR.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate but could be improved. The site uses HTTPS (implied by external resources loaded via HTTPS) but no explicit security headers were detected in the provided content. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries, but the absence of security policies and incident response contacts is a gap. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found. The site would benefit from implementing standard security headers and publishing clear security and privacy policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and libraries.
  5. Enhance transparency by adding vulnerability disclosure and security.txt files.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Read the Docs, Inc
Description
Read the Docs is a documentation building and hosting platform aimed at helping developers creating documentation from code with versioned documentation, integrated search, pull request previews and more.
Key services
documentation building, documentation hosting, versioned documentation, integrated search, pull request previews
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Pelican, Font Awesome 7, HTML5, CSS3
Frameworks
Pelican
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full HTML content
  2. No WHOIS data available for the subdomain as expected
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers found in the content
  5. No security headers or explicit security policies detected
  6. Uses Pelican static site generator and Font Awesome icons
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in the provided content
  8. No advertising or affiliate programs detected
  9. Content is focused on documentation platform for developers
  10. No adult or questionable content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Pelican static site generator and employs Font Awesome 7 for icons. The HTML content is well-structured with appropriate meta tags for SEO and social media sharing (Open Graph and Twitter cards). Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading. Mobile optimization is good, and accessibility is basic but present. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected. The site does not appear to use analytics or tracking services based on the provided content. Technical risks include lack of security headers and missing privacy compliance 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 rtfd.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 rtfd.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.