Skip to main content

Security report for studiotype.com

Jeremy Tankard Typography · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jeremy Tankard StudioType is a specialized typography design business focused on original and bespoke typeface creation. The website presents a professional and well-structured platform showcasing various typeface families and designs, targeting designers and typography professionals. The business appears to be well-established, with a domain registered since 1996, indicating long-term market presence. Technically, the website uses a custom-built stack with jQuery and related plugins, optimized for desktop and mobile viewing, with good SEO and accessibility basics. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, though improvements such as DNSSEC and security headers could enhance protection. Privacy compliance is basic but present, with a cookie policy and consent mechanism. Contact information is limited on the site, which may impact user trust and engagement. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional, with room for technical and security enhancements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching studiotype.com

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
56

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 company operates in the niche media sector, specifically typography and font design. Its business model includes selling original typefaces and bespoke commissions, leveraging a partner platform for font sales. The target audience includes graphic designers, branding agencies, and corporate clients seeking unique typography solutions. The website's market position is that of a boutique, expert type foundry with a strong brand identity. The lack of direct contact details on the site suggests a curated client approach. Social media presence on major platforms supports brand visibility. The company is likely small-sized, focused on quality and craftsmanship rather than volume. No parent or subsidiary companies are indicated, suggesting independent operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly implemented, and domain registration protections are in place to prevent unauthorized changes. Cookie consent is active, supporting privacy compliance. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options represents areas for improvement. No forms or input fields are present that could introduce vulnerabilities, and no exposed sensitive data was detected. The site does not disclose incident response contacts or security policies, which could be a gap in transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but could be strengthened to align with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance browser security.
  3. Add a dedicated privacy policy page with comprehensive GDPR compliance details.
  4. Provide clear contact information including a security or abuse contact email to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  5. Consider integrating analytics with privacy-respecting configurations to better understand user engagement while maintaining compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jeremy Tankard Typography
Description
Original type designs from Jeremy Tankard Typography
Key services
Original typeface design, Bespoke typeface commissions, Font sales via partner site typography.net
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.1.4, jQuery UI 1.9.2, Backstretch jQuery plugin, Picturefill, WebFont Loader
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Cookie consent implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and focused on original typeface design.
  2. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the main pages.
  3. Cookie consent is implemented with a banner and link to cookie policy.
  4. No explicit privacy policy page found but cookie policy is present and GDPR compliant.
  5. No terms of service or security policy pages detected.
  6. Social media links to Instagram, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter are present.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond cookie consent and font loading.
  8. No forms detected for contact or data collection on the main page.
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  10. No business registration or VAT numbers found in the content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a custom-built infrastructure with jQuery 2.1.4 and jQuery UI 1.9.2, which are somewhat dated but functional. It employs the Backstretch plugin for background images and Picturefill for responsive images, indicating attention to responsive design. WebFont Loader is used for custom fonts. The site does not appear to use a common CMS, suggesting bespoke development. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of some scripts. Mobile optimization is good with responsive CSS and media queries. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but present. Hosting details are limited, but the domain uses phase8.net name servers. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from modernization and security enhancements.
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 studiotype.com. 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 studiotype.com.

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.