Skip to main content

Security report for submit.as

Musing Studio · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Submit.as is a small technology company operating under the Musing Studio umbrella, providing a specialized SaaS platform for collecting and managing writing submissions for online publications. The service is tightly integrated with the Write.as blogging ecosystem and targets writers, bloggers, and independent publishers seeking a simple, no-signup submission process. The website content is well-structured and professionally presented, with clear calls to action and consistent branding aligned with its sister services. Technically, the site uses standard web technologies including CSS and JavaScript, with Piwik analytics for user tracking. Hosting is provided via StableTransit DNS services. However, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical security shortfall. Performance is moderate, and mobile optimization is basic but functional. SEO and accessibility features are present but could be improved. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS, security headers, and DNS security features significantly lowers the security posture. No explicit privacy compliance mechanisms such as cookie consent or GDPR indicators are present, though a privacy policy exists on a related domain. The WHOIS data is consistent with the business branding and shows no suspicious privacy protection, supporting legitimacy. Overall, Submit.as offers a niche, functional service with good business credibility but requires urgent improvements in security and privacy compliance to enhance trust and protect users. Strategic recommendations include deploying HTTPS, implementing security headers, and adding privacy and cookie policies to meet modern standards.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of submit.as. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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. 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';…

  2. 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

    • 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 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. 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
50
Security headers
25
Email security
50
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
54

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

Submit.as operates within a focused niche of the technology sector, providing a SaaS platform for writing submissions integrated with the Write.as ecosystem. Its competitive advantage lies in its no-signup submission process and seamless publishing integration with popular blogging platforms. Revenue likely derives from subscription pricing plans, targeting independent publishers, bloggers, and event organizers. The company is part of Musing Studio, which manages a suite of related services, indicating a collaborative ecosystem approach. Growth potential exists through expanding integrations and improving compliance. Partnerships with Write.as and related domains strengthen its market position. The lack of explicit contact information and limited marketing tools suggests a lean operational model focused on product functionality.

Security posture

The current security posture of Submit.as is weak due to the absence of HTTPS and a valid SSL certificate, exposing users to potential data interception risks. The lack of security headers and DNS security features such as DNSSEC and DMARC further increases vulnerability to attacks like DNS spoofing and email phishing. No incident response or security policy information is available, indicating limited transparency in security governance. The use of Piwik analytics suggests moderate user tracking without advanced privacy controls. Overall, the site does not meet basic security best practices, which could impact user trust and compliance with regulations such as GDPR. Immediate remediation is necessary to mitigate risks and improve security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Enable DNSSEC and publish DMARC records to enhance DNS and email security.
  4. Add explicit cookie consent mechanisms and update privacy policies to reflect GDPR compliance.
  5. Publish clear contact information and security incident response procedures to improve transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard web technologies including CSS and JavaScript, with external resources loaded from the Write.as CDN. It uses Piwik analytics for tracking user interactions. Hosting is managed via StableTransit DNS servers. The site has moderate load times and a small page size, indicating efficient resource usage. However, the lack of HTTPS and security headers represents significant technical debt. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. SEO metadata is present but could be enhanced. The absence of a CMS or framework suggests a custom or lightweight platform, likely tailored for the Write.as ecosystem. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business model but requires modernization to meet current security and compliance standards.
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. 66/100Medium34 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.

submit.as security report: 54/100, medium risk | Guard