Skip to main content

Security report for thejewishadvocate.com

The Jewish Advocate · Media · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Jewish Advocate is a small, non-profit media organization focused on delivering news and information to the Jewish community in Boston, Massachusetts. Established in 2008, it operates as a 501(c)3 reader-supported entity relying on donations. The website provides access to digital editions, news articles, and community resources, positioning itself as a trusted local news source. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and integrates Google Maps and OpenStreetMap for location-based features. It uses CDN services for performance and includes advertising and analytics tools such as AdRotate and Matomo. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent mechanisms but lacks explicit security headers and advanced form protections. Overall, the site is accessible, professionally designed, and maintains a good level of trustworthiness with no signs of blocking or WAF interference.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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';…
  3. 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

  4. 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 thejewishadvocate.com

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. 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
62
Security headers
65
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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 thejewishadvocate.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
23
Employees
0
Customers
23
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
9%

2 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 thejewishadvocate.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

The Jewish Advocate targets the Boston Jewish community with a non-profit business model emphasizing reader support and tax-deductible donations. Its market position is that of a niche local news provider with a focus on community engagement. The business leverages partnerships with Our Hometown for content management and advertising. Revenue streams likely include donations and advertising. The website's content and structure indicate a focus on quality journalism and community service. The presence of social media links and digital editions suggests efforts to engage a broader audience digitally. The organization maintains consistent branding and trust signals appropriate for a non-profit media entity.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with enforced HTTPS and cookie consent compliance. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and HSTS in the HTML snapshot. Forms do not show explicit anti-CSRF tokens, and no dedicated security or incident response policies are found. The use of third-party scripts and plugins introduces potential risks that require regular updates and monitoring. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities are evident in the source. The site would benefit from enhanced security headers and formalized incident response documentation to improve its security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Add anti-CSRF tokens to all forms to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
  3. Regularly audit and update all third-party plugins and scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan accessible to users.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by detailing GDPR adherence and data retention policies.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
The Jewish Advocate
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Jewish Advocate
Description
The Jewish Advocate is a not-for-profit reader-supported 501(c)3 organization providing news and information relevant to the Jewish community in Boston, Massachusetts.
Key services
News publication, Digital edition access, Community information
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Bootstrap 4.5, Google Maps API, Leaflet (OpenStreetMap), AddToAny sharing, Matomo Analytics, AdRotate Professional
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed credentials in HTML
  • Use of nonce in AJAX URLs
  • Cookie consent implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
AdRotate Professional
Tracking pixels
Matomo
Marketing tools
AddToAny
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a non-profit news publication serving the Boston Jewish community.
  2. Content is accessible and well-structured with clear navigation.
  3. Uses standard WordPress CMS with common plugins and libraries.
  4. Implements cookie consent and privacy policy but lacks explicit security headers.
  5. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  6. Includes donation appeals consistent with non-profit status.
  7. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities in HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using a combination of PHP, jQuery, and Bootstrap frameworks. It leverages CDN services (Cloudfront) for asset delivery and integrates Google Maps and Leaflet for geolocation features. The site includes advertising management via AdRotate and analytics tracking through Matomo. Performance is moderate with some optimization evident. Mobile responsiveness is good, and SEO is supported by meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from improved security configurations and performance tuning.
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 thejewishadvocate.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 thejewishadvocate.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.