Skip to main content

Security report for typography.net

Jeremy Tankard Typography · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jeremy Tankard Typography is an independent digital type foundry specializing in unique font designs. Established in 1998, the company offers a curated selection of font families targeting design professionals and creative agencies. The website showcases their font collections with rich visual samples and provides navigation to explore, license, and support their products. Technically, the site uses a custom-built platform leveraging jQuery and modern font loading techniques, hosted behind Cloudflare DNS. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enabled and domain management best practices, though improvements can be made by enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers. Privacy compliance is addressed with a cookie consent banner and a basic cookie policy, but lacks a detailed privacy policy or terms of service. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

3 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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. 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 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 typography.net

This scan found 22 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
65
Security headers
30
Email security
55
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
70

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 operates in a niche market of digital typography, focusing on font design and licensing. Its long domain age and consistent branding indicate a stable market position. The partnership with StudioType suggests collaboration within the typography industry. Revenue likely derives from font sales and licensing agreements. The target customers are designers and agencies seeking distinctive typefaces. The absence of direct contact information on the homepage may indicate a controlled client engagement model, possibly via client area login. The company maintains a focused online presence with social media integration to enhance brand visibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and domain status flags prevent unauthorized domain transfers or deletions. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which could improve DNS security. No security headers were detected in the provided data, representing a potential area for enhancement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. The cookie consent mechanism aligns with GDPR requirements, but no explicit security or incident response policies are published. The lack of a security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page limits transparency in security incident handling.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  4. Add a security policy page and incident response contact information to demonstrate security readiness.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jeremy Tankard Typography
Description
Independent digital type foundry
Key services
Font design, Font licensing, Font exploration, Client area services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.1.4, jQuery UI 1.9.2, jQuery Backstretch, Picturefill, WebFont Loader, Cloudflare DNS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • External links open in new tabs

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed with clear navigation and branding.
  2. Content focuses on font families and typography products.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage.
  4. Cookie consent banner present and functional.
  5. No terms of service or explicit security policy pages found.
  6. Social media links are present and point to legitimate platforms.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML.
  8. WHOIS data shows domain is well maintained and not privacy protected.
  9. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a custom-built platform with jQuery 2.1.4 and jQuery UI 1.9.2, which are somewhat dated but functional. It employs Picturefill for responsive images and WebFont Loader for custom fonts, indicating attention to typography presentation. Hosting is behind Cloudflare DNS, improving DNS reliability and performance. The site is mobile optimized with responsive CSS and JavaScript. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with some potential for improvement by updating libraries and optimizing assets. Accessibility features are basic but present. No CMS or major frameworks were detected, suggesting a bespoke solution.
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 typography.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 typography.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.