Skip to main content

Security report for theintercept.com

The Intercept · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Intercept is a well-established independent media organization founded in 2009, specializing in investigative journalism across politics, justice, technology, national security, environment, and world affairs. It operates a content-rich website with professional design, clear navigation, and strong mobile optimization. The business model relies on donations and memberships, supported by a dedicated partner domain for contributions. Technically, the site is built on WordPress VIP, leveraging modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Jetpack, and ElasticPress, hosted with Cloudflare DNS services. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections, though improvements are recommended in DNSSEC adoption and security header implementation. Privacy compliance is good with a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of use, but lacks an explicit cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and a mature digital presence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of theintercept.com. View the latest report

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

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 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. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching theintercept.com

This scan found 24 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
42
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
69

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 Intercept holds a strong market position as an independent investigative news outlet with a medium-sized operation. Its revenue streams are primarily from donations and memberships, facilitated through a dedicated partner domain. The target audience is general public interested in in-depth news and analysis. The organization maintains consistent branding and trust signals such as clear policies and social media presence. The partnership ecosystem includes donation platforms and analytics providers. Growth indicators include active content updates and diversified content types including podcasts and newsletters.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain registration protections like clientTransferProhibited status. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended enhancement for DNS security. Security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not explicitly detected and should be implemented to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were found. Forms are secured with required fields and privacy agreements. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact is a gap in transparency and readiness. No vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file is present, limiting external security engagement.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Add an explicit cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Intercept
Description
The Intercept is an independent news organization providing original reporting and fearless journalism focused on politics, justice, technology, national security, environment, and world affairs.
Key services
News reporting, Investigative journalism, Podcasts, Newsletter
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Tag Manager, Jetpack, ElasticPress, Parsely
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress VIP
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with required fields and privacy agreement

Analytics and tracking

Services
Parsely, Jetpack Stats, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Parsely, Jetpack Stats
Marketing tools
Parsely
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional independent news media outlet.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and updated.
  3. Strong social media presence across multiple platforms.
  4. Donation and membership models are prominently featured.
  5. No signs of adult or inappropriate content.
  6. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  7. Security headers could be improved.
  8. DNSSEC is not enabled.
  9. WHOIS data is transparent and consistent.
Technical notes

Notes

The Intercept's website is built on a robust WordPress VIP platform with modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Jetpack, ElasticPress, and Parsely for analytics and content delivery. The site demonstrates fast performance, excellent mobile optimization, and good accessibility features. The use of preloaded fonts and optimized images contributes to performance. The technical infrastructure is well-maintained with no visible technical debt or deprecated libraries. Hosting and DNS are managed through reputable providers, ensuring reliability and security. Opportunities exist to further modernize security configurations and enhance privacy compliance mechanisms.
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. 70/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with theintercept.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 theintercept.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.