Skip to main content

Security report for techdirt.com

Techdirt · Media · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Techdirt is a reputable online media publication specializing in technology news, policy analysis, and digital rights commentary. It targets a knowledgeable audience interested in technology's societal impacts and legal issues. The website is built on WordPress with modern web technologies and integrates third-party analytics and affiliate marketing tools. While the site demonstrates good content quality, technical implementation, and business credibility, it lacks explicit privacy and cookie policies and does not provide direct contact information, which impacts its privacy compliance score. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities, but security headers could be improved. Overall, Techdirt presents a professional and trustworthy platform with room for enhanced privacy transparency and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

6 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 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

  3. 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.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

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

Keep watching techdirt.com

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. 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
65
Security headers
35
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

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 techdirt.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
9,848
Employees
0
Customers
9,848
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
8%

12 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 techdirt.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Techdirt holds a strong position in the technology media sector, leveraging a mixed revenue model including advertising, affiliate deals, and subscription content. Its audience includes tech professionals, policy makers, and enthusiasts. The site maintains active content publication and engagement through social media and podcasts. Partnerships with affiliate networks and podcast platforms extend its reach. The business model focuses on independent journalism with a niche in technology policy and digital rights, supporting growth through diversified content and monetization channels.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses asynchronous script loading to optimize performance and security. No sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. The lack of published security policies or incident response information indicates a gap in transparency and preparedness. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adopting comprehensive security headers and publicly available security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  3. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies for vulnerabilities and update accordingly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Techdirt
Description
Techdirt is an online media publication focused on technology, policy, law, and societal impacts of technology. It provides news, analysis, and commentary on topics such as AI, free speech, legal issues, policy, and technology history.
Key services
Technology news and analysis, Policy commentary, Affiliate deals and product promotions, Podcast and newsletter content
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, MediaElement.js, Buzzsprout podcast player, StackCommerce widget, Plausible Analytics
Frameworks
WordPress block editor (Gutenberg)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of async and defer on scripts
  • No visible exposed sensitive data

Analytics and tracking

Services
Plausible Analytics, Gauges
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
StackCommerce
Tracking pixels
Plausible Analytics, Gauges
Marketing tools
Plausible Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established technology news and analysis platform.
  2. Content is regularly updated with multiple recent articles.
  3. No signs of blocking or WAF interference.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on the main page.
  5. Multiple external trusted domains linked for analytics and content delivery.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and WordPress CMS.
  7. No exposed sensitive data or obvious security vulnerabilities detected.
  8. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the main page.
  9. Social media presence includes Twitter, Facebook, RSS, and podcast subscriptions.
Technical notes

Notes

Techdirt uses WordPress CMS with a modern block editor and integrates several JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and MediaElement.js. The site leverages CDN services from Automattic and uses Plausible Analytics for privacy-focused tracking. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading and preconnect hints. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic and could be improved. SEO is supported with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The technical infrastructure is stable and scalable but would benefit from enhanced accessibility and security configurations.
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 techdirt.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 techdirt.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.