Skip to main content

Security report for scribe.rip

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website scribe.rip serves as a minimalistic alternative frontend to Medium, allowing users to view Medium posts by substituting the domain in URLs. It targets Medium readers seeking a different interface or experience. The site offers basic functionality without monetization or extensive business infrastructure. Technically, it uses standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and the Turbolinks framework to enhance navigation speed. The site lacks advanced technical features, security headers, or privacy policies, indicating a low level of digital maturity. Security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and contact or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators were found, but the lack of security best practices and privacy compliance reduces trust. Overall, the site is safe for general audiences but limited in business credibility and compliance. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding privacy and cookie policies, improving security headers, and providing contact information to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

9 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 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching scribe.rip

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
52
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention scribe.rip, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for scribe.rip right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Scribe.rip operates in the technology sector as a niche service providing an alternative Medium frontend. Its business model appears to be free and open-source, as indicated by the linked source code repository. The target audience is Medium users who prefer a different reading interface. The site does not display advertising, analytics, or tracking, suggesting a privacy-conscious approach or minimal monetization. The lack of company information, certifications, or contact details limits its business credibility and market presence. There are no detected partnerships or subsidiaries. Growth potential depends on user adoption and community contributions. The site’s simplicity and open-source nature may appeal to privacy-focused users and developers.

Security posture

The security posture of scribe.rip is currently weak. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no incident response or security contact information is provided. The absence of these elements increases risk exposure and reduces compliance with GDPR and other regulations. No vulnerabilities or malware were detected in the provided content. The site should prioritize implementing HTTPS, security headers, and privacy compliance measures to improve its security maturity and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Deploy security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Provide clear contact information and establish an incident response process.
  5. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility to improve user experience and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
An alternative frontend to Medium allowing users to view Medium posts by replacing medium.com with scribe.rip in URLs.
Key services
Medium post viewing via URL rewriting, Support for custom domains
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript
Frameworks
Turbolinks
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a simple alternative frontend to Medium posts.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact or security incident response information provided.
  4. No WHOIS data available due to unsupported TLD and privacy.
  5. No advertising or analytics detected.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS status information available.
  7. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  8. Minimal technical complexity and basic design.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple tech stack consisting of HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and the Turbolinks framework to improve navigation speed. There is no detected CMS or advanced platform. The site appears to be self-hosted or hosted on an unknown provider, with no CDN or analytics scripts detected. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO optimization is minimal, with only basic meta tags present. The site’s technical simplicity reduces attack surface but also limits scalability and advanced features. Opportunities exist to modernize with HTTPS, security headers, and enhanced SEO and 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with scribe.rip. 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 scribe.rip.

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.