Skip to main content

Security report for shoddy.site

shoddy.site · Technology · Iceland

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Shoddy.site is a small independent Mastodon server operated by an individual named Chris, providing a general purpose fediverse social media service. The website serves as an about page describing the service and its administration, targeting general users interested in decentralized social media. The business model is community-driven and personal, with no commercial or enterprise scale indicated. Technically, the site runs on a Glitch-soc fork of Mastodon version 4.3.5, with a modern JavaScript and CSS stack, and is moderately optimized for mobile and accessibility. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, and no published security or incident response policies. Privacy compliance is partial with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism or GDPR explicit statements. Overall, the site is trustworthy for its scale and purpose but could improve security and compliance transparency.

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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching shoddy.site

This scan found 20 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
75
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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 site positions itself as a small, personal Mastodon instance within the fediverse ecosystem, operated alongside other personal social media instances (zknt.org and pixelfed.de). It targets users seeking decentralized social media without ads or algorithms. The business advantage lies in its independent and privacy-conscious operation. Revenue streams or monetization are not evident. The partnership ecosystem is limited to related fediverse projects and open source software. Growth indicators are minimal given the small user base (4 active users). Strategic observations suggest a focus on community and privacy rather than commercial expansion.

Security posture

The security maturity level is basic. HTTPS is enforced, and domain transfer is protected, but DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers are detected. There is no published security policy or incident response plan, which limits transparency and readiness. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. The site does not collect sensitive data via forms, reducing exposure risk. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small personal service but would benefit from enhanced domain security, security headers, and published policies to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
shoddy.site
Description
General purpose fediverse service, ran by me, chris, next to my gotosocial instance zknt.org and my pixelfed instance pixelfed.de.
Key services
Mastodon fediverse hosting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon 4.3.5+glitch, JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Frameworks
Glitch-soc fork of Mastodon
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • clientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a small independent Mastodon server operated by an individual named Chris.
  2. Content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  3. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite privacy policy presence.
  4. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  5. No terms of service or vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  6. Minimal external linking mostly to related fediverse and open source projects.
  7. No advertising or tracking technologies detected.
  8. WHOIS data shows privacy protection, which is reasonable for this type of service.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Mastodon fork (Glitch-soc) with standard web technologies (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript). It uses multiple favicon sizes and Apple touch icons, indicating attention to cross-device compatibility. The site is mobile optimized and accessible at a basic level. Performance is moderate with no explicit speed optimizations detected. SEO is basic with meta tags and Open Graph data present but no advanced structured data like JSON-LD for business or organization. Hosting details are limited; domain registrar is Namecheap with privacy protection enabled. No CMS detected. The technical stack is appropriate for a small social media instance but could benefit from enhanced SEO and security configurations.
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 shoddy.site. 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 shoddy.site.

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.