Skip to main content

Security report for techpolicy.social

techpolicy.social · Technology · Iceland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

techpolicy.social operates as a niche Mastodon instance dedicated to technology and internet policy professionals. It provides a federated social networking platform run on a volunteer basis, leveraging the open-source Mastodon software. The platform targets a specialized audience interested in tech policy discourse and collaboration. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and good content relevance, supporting a small but active user base. Technically, the site uses Mastodon version 4.3.9 with React and modern web technologies, offering good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Security posture is moderate, with domain privacy protection and clientTransferProhibited status, but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism or terms of service found. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe, with no adult content or suspicious elements detected.

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

3 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.

    • 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching techpolicy.social

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
72
Security headers
75
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
40
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

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 model is volunteer-driven, focusing on providing a social platform for a specialized professional community. The site is relatively new, founded in 2022, and operates independently without parent or subsidiary companies. Its market position is niche within the federated social media ecosystem, emphasizing privacy and community governance. Revenue streams are not evident, consistent with volunteer operation. The platform benefits from open-source technology and a partnership ecosystem inherent to the Mastodon and fediverse communities. Growth indicators include active user engagement and content relevance in the tech policy domain. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to enhance security and privacy compliance to strengthen trust and broaden appeal.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The domain uses privacy protection services and has clientTransferProhibited status, which are positive trust signals. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no HTTP security headers were detected in the provided data, indicating room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the content. The absence of a security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits transparency and readiness. Compliance with GDPR is partial, with a privacy policy present but lacking cookie consent and terms of service. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly visible. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a volunteer-run platform but would benefit from formalized policies and technical enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain name system security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish HTTP security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add a cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Publish clear terms of service and security policies including incident response procedures.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet compliance standards and improve user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
techpolicy.social
Description
techpolicy.social is a privately controlled Mastodon instance intended for use by technology and internet policy professionals. It is run on a volunteer basis by @mchris@techpolicy.social.
Key services
Mastodon social networking, federated social media participation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Mastodon 4.3.9, React, JavaScript, CSS, SVG
Frameworks
Mastodon
Platforms
Fediverse
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • clientTransferProhibited domain status
  • privacy protected WHOIS

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a Mastodon instance focused on technology and internet policy professionals.
  2. Content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the explore page.
  4. Privacy policy is present but cookie policy and terms of service are not explicitly found.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information detected.
  6. Site uses modern Mastodon platform version 4.3.9 with React and JS.
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected in the provided HTML.
  8. WHOIS data shows privacy protection and domain status clientTransferProhibited.
  9. Site branding and content are consistent and professional.
  10. No adult or NSFW content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Mastodon platform version 4.3.9, utilizing React and modern JavaScript and CSS. The site is mobile optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation and consistent branding. Performance is moderate, with no explicit performance metrics available. The absence of a CMS suggests a custom or platform-specific content management approach. Hosting details are not explicit but likely involve VPS or cloud infrastructure. Technical debt appears low given the use of up-to-date Mastodon software, but opportunities exist to improve security configurations and accessibility compliance. No major technical risks were identified that would impact business operations significantly.
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 techpolicy.social. 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 techpolicy.social.

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.