Skip to main content

Security report for theathletic.com

The Athletic · Media · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Athletic is a premium sports news and analysis platform owned by The New York Times, offering comprehensive coverage across multiple sports leagues and teams. It targets sports enthusiasts seeking in-depth stories, scores, schedules, and podcasts through a subscription-based model. The website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, consistent branding, and excellent content quality, positioning it strongly in the media industry. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including React and Next.js, with integrations for analytics and consent management such as Google Tag Manager, Chartbeat, Datadog RUM, and Transcend. The site is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, providing a fast and user-friendly experience. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs multiple security headers, and shows no signs of exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is robust with clear privacy and cookie policies, GDPR adherence, and visible contact information. However, there is room to improve by publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy and enhancing incident response contact visibility. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with strong trust indicators and a mature digital presence. The lack of WHOIS data is likely due to privacy protections common for high-profile domains and does not detract from the site's legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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

2 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 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 theathletic.com

This scan found 12 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
82
Security headers
75
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
86

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 theathletic.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,383
Employees
6
Customers
3,326
Third parties
51
Weak passwords
9%

Latest record dated 2026-06-12 · 9 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 theathletic.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –theathletic.com2026-06-12
  • –theathletic.com2026-04-30
  • –theathletic.com2025-12-05
  • –theathletic.com2025-07-28
  • –theathletic.com2025-07-13

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

The Athletic operates as a subsidiary of The New York Times, leveraging the parent company's reputation to establish itself as a leading sports media brand. Its subscription-based business model focuses on delivering exclusive sports content to a dedicated audience. The company benefits from a broad partnership ecosystem including customer support via Zendesk and social media engagement across major platforms. Growth indicators include consistent content updates, diversified sports coverage, and integration of podcasts and fantasy sports content. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining premium content quality and expanding digital engagement to sustain competitive advantage.

Security posture

The Athletic exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and no detected vulnerabilities in the analyzed content. Data protection practices align with GDPR requirements, supported by clear privacy and cookie policies. Incident response mechanisms are not prominently disclosed, suggesting an opportunity to improve transparency and readiness. The use of third-party analytics and marketing tools is balanced with privacy compliance measures. Overall, the security culture appears proactive but could benefit from formalized vulnerability disclosure and incident response documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a formal vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to enhance transparency and community engagement.
  2. Improve visibility of incident response contacts to facilitate timely reporting and handling of security issues.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance data retention policy disclosures to align with best privacy practices and user expectations.
  5. Continue investing in accessibility and mobile optimization to maintain excellent user experience across devices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
The Athletic
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Athletic
Description
Unrivaled sports coverage across every team you care about and every league you follow. Get breaking news, powerful stories and smart analysis from the best writers in sports.
Key services
Sports news, Stories, Scores, Schedules, Podcasts, Fantasy Football content
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Google Tag Manager, Chartbeat, Datadog RUM, Transcend Consent Management, Brandmetrics
Frameworks
Next.js
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data detected
  • Secure forms with proper redirection

Analytics and tracking

Services
Chartbeat, Datadog RUM, ScorecardResearch
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
ScorecardResearch
Tracking pixels
Chartbeat, Datadog RUM
Marketing tools
Brandmetrics
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking detected.
  2. Strong branding and consistent design aligned with The New York Times.
  3. Comprehensive privacy and terms policies present.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. No security or privacy red flags detected in content or scripts.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to privacy or registry restrictions.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React and Next.js framework, enabling server-side rendering and optimized performance. It integrates multiple analytics and consent management tools, including Google Tag Manager, Chartbeat, Datadog RUM, and Transcend, indicating a sophisticated approach to user tracking and privacy compliance. The site demonstrates fast loading times, excellent mobile responsiveness, and good SEO practices with proper meta tags and structured data. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary content management solution. Hosting details are not explicitly available but likely leverage enterprise-grade infrastructure given the scale and brand. Technical risks are minimal, with opportunities for further modernization in security transparency and incident response readiness.
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. 85/100Low21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with theathletic.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 theathletic.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.