Skip to main content

Security report for tupelohoney.net

Tupelo Honey · Media · N/a

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

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Tupelo Honey is a media company specializing in storytelling and content production for sports and entertainment sectors, boasting over 25 years of experience. The company is affiliated with Gray Television, indicating a strong market position and professional backing. Their services include live sports coverage, original programming, branded content, and entertainment media. The website is built on WordPress with modern plugins and technologies, providing a visually appealing and content-rich experience optimized for desktop and mobile users. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, though security headers and explicit policies are lacking. Privacy compliance is minimal with no visible privacy or cookie policies, which is a gap for regulatory adherence. The absence of WHOIS domain registration data is a concern for trust and legitimacy, requiring further verification. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy front but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures.

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

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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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 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 tupelohoney.net

This scan found 23 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
30
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
Average
58

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

Tupelo Honey operates in the media industry with a focus on sports and entertainment content production. Their business model revolves around creating compelling content that connects audiences with athletes, performers, and brands. The company leverages its affiliation with Gray Television to enhance credibility and market reach. Their target customers include media outlets, sports organizations, and entertainment brands. The website's content and social media presence indicate active engagement and a medium-sized operation. The lack of explicit business registration details and domain WHOIS data is a gap in transparency. The company appears to maintain a professional brand image and consistent messaging, positioning itself as a reliable content partner in its niche.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communication. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against certain web attacks. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, limiting transparency and incident response readiness. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The site lacks explicit security policies or incident response contacts, which are best practices for mature security posture. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by implementing recommended headers, policies, and disclosure channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements and consent mechanisms.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
  4. Verify and publish domain WHOIS registration details to improve trust and legitimacy.
  5. Include explicit incident response and security contact information on the website.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Tupelo Honey
Description
Tupelo Honey brings more than 25 years of excellence in storytelling to screens large and small. Never content to simply provide coverage, Team Tupelo strives to connect audiences to athletes, performers, and brands through compelling content that entertains, informs, and inspires.
Key services
Live Sports coverage, Entertainment content, Original programming, Branded content
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.4.5, Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery 3.7.1, Fusion Builder, Google Analytics (gtag.js)
Frameworks
WordPress, Fusion Builder
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich multimedia content including video backgrounds and images.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies explicitly found on homepage or metadata.
  3. Contact email info@tupelohoney.net is prominently displayed.
  4. Social media presence on Facebook and Twitter is linked.
  5. No phone numbers or physical addresses found in the provided content.
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts found.
  10. WHOIS data is missing or domain appears unregistered which is unusual for an active business website.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.4.5 using the Fusion Builder framework and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and SEO-optimized infrastructure. It uses jQuery 3.7.1 and Google Analytics for tracking. The site features video backgrounds and responsive design elements, providing a good user experience across devices. Performance is moderate with some heavy multimedia content. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical stack is standard for media content sites, with opportunities to improve security configurations and privacy compliance. Hosting provider details are not evident from the content. Overall, the technical implementation supports the business goals effectively but can be enhanced with security and privacy improvements.
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 tupelohoney.net. 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 tupelohoney.net.

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.