Skip to main content

Security report for target.com

Target Corporation · Retail · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Target Corporation operates a large-scale retail and e-commerce platform serving a broad consumer base in the United States. The website offers a comprehensive shopping experience including groceries, clothing, electronics, and household essentials, supported by loyalty programs such as Target Circle and Target Circle 360. The site demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure with modern web technologies and extensive marketing and analytics integrations. However, a critical security concern is the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS enforcement, which significantly impacts the security posture. Privacy policies and terms of service are well documented, supporting compliance with regulations such as GDPR. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent remediation of its SSL/TLS configuration to ensure secure user interactions.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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

4 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching target.com

This scan found 14 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
70
Email security
50
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
55

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 target.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
625,791
Employees
39
Customers
610,751
Third parties
15,001
Weak passwords
7%

Latest record dated 2026-06-17 · 330 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for target.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –logonservices.iam.target.com2026-06-17
  • –ommotds.target.com2026-06-15
  • –wiki.colab.target.com2026-06-15
  • –wiki.slingshot.target.com2026-06-15
  • –logonservices.iam.target.com2026-06-08

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

Target holds a strong market position as a leading retail and e-commerce enterprise in the US. Its business model focuses on multi-channel retailing with a strong emphasis on customer loyalty and convenience through contactless pickup and delivery options. The company leverages partnerships with payment processors like Stripe and integrates with major platforms such as Apple Pay and Google services. The website content and navigation are designed to cater to a wide demographic, including families, students, and general consumers. The presence of multiple promotional campaigns and curated categories indicates a dynamic marketing strategy aimed at driving sales and customer engagement.

Security posture

The website implements several security headers such as X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Content-Security-Policy to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent a critical security gap, exposing users to potential data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The site lacks OCSP stapling and session resumption features, which could improve SSL performance and reliability. No known vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available on the site, which could be improved to enhance transparency and trust.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site.
  2. Enable and configure HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling to improve certificate validation performance.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are used.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including React with Next.js framework, leveraging server-side rendering for performance and SEO benefits. It uses Akamai for DNS and hosting, and Adobe Scene7 for image delivery. The site integrates multiple third-party services for advertising, analytics, and marketing automation. Despite the modern stack, performance metrics are missing or indicate slow loading, suggesting optimization opportunities. Accessibility and SEO practices are well implemented, with proper meta tags, Open Graph data, and structured JSON-LD for rich snippets. The site is mobile-optimized and responsive, providing a good user experience across devices.
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 target.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 target.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.