Skip to main content

Security report for submit.as

Musing Studio · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Submit.as is a specialized SaaS platform designed to facilitate simple writing submissions and reviews for online publications, particularly those using Write.as and Ghost. It targets writers, bloggers, and independent publishers seeking a no-signup, distraction-free submission process. The platform is part of the Musing Studio suite, which includes related services like Write.as and Snap.as, positioning it well within a niche market focused on privacy and open web publishing. Technically, the website employs modern web standards with a clean design, uses Piwik/Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics, and integrates well within its ecosystem. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though it lacks some security headers and formal policies such as terms of service and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-branded, but could improve compliance and security 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

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. 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 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 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 submit.as

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
95
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
66

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 submit.as, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for submit.as 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

The business operates in the technology sector, providing a SaaS solution for content submission and publishing workflows. Its competitive advantage lies in its simplicity, no-signup submission process, and integration with popular open web publishing platforms. Revenue likely comes from subscription pricing plans. The target customers are independent publishers, bloggers, and event organizers who require streamlined content collection. The company benefits from a cohesive product suite under Musing Studio, enhancing cross-service synergy. Growth potential exists through planned integrations with additional platforms like Tumblr and WordPress. The partnership ecosystem includes related domains and open source projects, reinforcing its market position.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which are recommended best practices. No incident response or security policy information is published, and no dedicated security contact channels are provided. The absence of cookie consent mechanisms and terms of service pages indicates partial privacy compliance. The use of Piwik/Matomo analytics suggests a privacy-aware approach. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for the business scale but could be improved with formal policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive cookie policy with consent mechanisms to comply with privacy regulations.
  2. Add a terms of service page to clarify user agreements and legal protections.
  3. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
  5. Consider publishing a security policy and incident response plan to enhance transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Musing Studio
Description
Submit.as is a platform for simple writing submission and review designed to collect written content submissions, review them, and publish directly to online publications. It supports no-signup submissions and integrates with Write.as, Ghost, and plans to support other platforms.
Key services
Writing submission collection, Submission review, Publishing integration with Write.as and Ghost
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, WebFont Loader, Piwik/Matomo Analytics
Platforms
Write.as ecosystem
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected
  • Secure form inputs (email input with border styling)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik/Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Piwik/Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is focused on a niche SaaS product for writing submissions.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the site.
  4. Privacy policy is linked but cookie policy and terms of service are missing.
  5. Security headers are not explicitly visible in the HTML content.
  6. Uses Piwik/Matomo for analytics, indicating some privacy focus.
  7. Branding and navigation are consistent and professional.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected.
  9. WHOIS data shows active domain with no privacy protection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and WebFont Loader for typography. It integrates Piwik/Matomo for analytics, reflecting a privacy-conscious approach. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good navigation clarity. Hosting details are limited but the domain registrar is gdns, consistent with the .as TLD. Performance is moderate with no major technical debt visible in the HTML content. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but could be enhanced with ARIA roles and landmarks. Overall, the technical implementation supports the business goals effectively with room for modernization in security headers and privacy features.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 54/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with submit.as. 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 submit.as.

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.