Skip to main content

Security report for squeakfoundation.org

squeak-smalltalk · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website is a GitHub-hosted open source repository named 'squeak-object-memory' under the organization 'squeak-smalltalk'. It focuses on issues and assets related to the Squeak object memory, targeting developers and users interested in Smalltalk technology. The project has been active since 2007, indicating a mature and stable presence in its niche. The platform leverages GitHub's infrastructure, providing source code hosting, issue tracking, and collaboration features. The website design is professional and optimized for both desktop and mobile users, with good accessibility and SEO practices. Security is robust with HTTPS enforced and domain protections in place, although DNSSEC is not enabled. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, which is a compliance gap. No direct contact or incident response information is provided, limiting transparency in these areas. Overall, the website is trustworthy and technically sound but could improve privacy compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

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

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

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching squeakfoundation.org

This scan found 19 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
75
Email security
80
DNS health
90
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
Average
67

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 repository serves a niche community focused on Squeak Smalltalk object memory management. Its business model is open source collaboration without direct monetization. The project benefits from GitHub's platform trust and infrastructure. Market positioning is specialized, appealing to developers in the Smalltalk ecosystem. The lack of explicit business contact information and policies suggests a community-driven rather than commercial operation. The project has modest but consistent engagement, indicated by stars and forks. There are no evident partnerships or subsidiaries linked directly from the site. The repository's longevity and stable domain registration support its credibility.

Security posture

The site benefits from GitHub's secure hosting environment, including HTTPS and domain status protections that prevent unauthorized domain changes. However, the absence of DNSSEC is a minor security gap. No explicit security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are published, which could hinder coordinated security management. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the page content. The site does not implement cookie consent mechanisms or privacy policies, which are important for GDPR compliance. Overall, the security posture is good due to platform reliance but lacks self-published security governance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security.
  2. Publish a clear privacy policy and cookie policy with consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  3. Add a security policy page detailing incident response procedures and contact channels.
  4. Implement a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide contact information for business and security inquiries to increase transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
squeak-smalltalk
Description
Issues and assets related to the Squeak object memory.
Key services
source code hosting, issue tracking, collaboration platform
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
GitHub platform, HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, React (partial usage), Primer CSS
Frameworks
React
Platforms
GitHub
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
GitHub internal analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a GitHub repository page for an open source project
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found
  4. Uses modern web technologies and GitHub platform features
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  6. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected
  7. Content is technical and targeted at developers
  8. WHOIS data indicates a stable and legitimate domain
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on GitHub's platform using modern web technologies including React and Primer CSS for UI components. The HTML and CSS are valid and optimized for performance and accessibility. The site is mobile responsive and SEO optimized with appropriate meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting on GitHub ensures high availability and fast load times. There is no evidence of a separate CMS or custom backend. The technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained, with opportunities to improve security configurations such as DNSSEC and self-published security documentation.
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 squeakfoundation.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 squeakfoundation.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.