Skip to main content

Security report for wordpresc.com

WordPress.com · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website wordpresc.com presents itself as a platform offering WordPress.com related services including website building tools, themes, hosting, and marketing features. The content is professionally structured and targets a general audience interested in website creation. The business model aligns with a platform-as-a-service offering, supported by Automattic, a recognized parent company. The technical infrastructure is modern with use of Google Fonts and Cloudflare DNS, but lacks advanced security configurations such as DNSSEC and security headers. The WHOIS data shows inconsistencies with a domain creation date set in the future, which raises concerns about data accuracy or potential domain spoofing. No contact information or privacy compliance mechanisms such as cookie consent banners are present, limiting transparency and user trust. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires improvements in security posture and privacy compliance.

Scanned

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

7 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 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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching wordpresc.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. 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
63

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

Wordpresc.com operates in the technology sector focusing on website building and hosting services. It leverages WordPress.com branding and Automattic's backing to position itself as a major player in the market. The platform offers a comprehensive suite of tools including themes, block editor, video hosting, SEO, and email marketing, targeting individuals and businesses seeking easy website creation solutions. The absence of explicit contact details and privacy mechanisms suggests a focus on self-service rather than direct customer engagement. The domain registration anomalies warrant further investigation to confirm legitimacy. The business model is subscription and service-based, with potential revenue from hosting, domain sales, and premium features.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate. While the domain status includes client-side prohibitions that protect against unauthorized transfers or deletions, the lack of DNSSEC and security headers reduces overall security. No SSL configuration details were provided, but the presence of Cloudflare DNS suggests HTTPS is likely enabled. The absence of vulnerability disclosure policies, incident response contacts, and data protection officer information indicates gaps in security governance and compliance readiness. No forms or input fields were detected, minimizing attack surface but also limiting user interaction. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, and publishing clear security and privacy policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Add explicit cookie policy and consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and improve user trust.
  4. Publish clear contact information including security incident response contacts and data protection officer details.
  5. Investigate and correct WHOIS domain registration data to ensure consistency and legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
WordPress.com
Description
WordPress.com offers a platform with a wide range of website building features including themes, block editor, video hosting, social media tools, SEO tools, and email marketing.
Key services
WordPress Hosting, Domain Names, Website Builder, Themes, Plugins
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, Google Fonts (Inter), Cloudflare DNS
Platforms
WordPress.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
SEO Tools, Email Marketing
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages found, only links to Terms of Service and Privacy Policy on homepage navigation.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found on the page.
  4. No forms detected on the homepage content provided.
  5. No social media links explicitly found in the HTML content.
  6. No scripts or external JavaScript libraries detected in the provided HTML.
  7. Website uses Cloudflare DNS but does not enable DNSSEC.
  8. Domain WHOIS data shows future creation date, which is suspicious and likely erroneous.
  9. Website branding and content strongly align with WordPress.com and Automattic.
  10. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL configuration unknown.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a clean HTML5 and CSS3 structure with Google Fonts integration and Cloudflare DNS services. The CMS is WordPress, consistent with the branding and content. No external JavaScript libraries or analytics scripts were detected in the provided HTML, indicating a minimalistic approach or incomplete data capture. Performance is likely moderate given the simple design and limited external dependencies. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. SEO optimization is present at a basic level with meta tags and structured content sections. The domain registrar is GoDaddy, but the domain creation date is suspiciously set in the future, which is a technical anomaly. Hosting details are not explicit but likely aligned with WordPress.com infrastructure.
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 wordpresc.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 wordpresc.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.