Skip to main content

Security report for wordpress.net

WordPress · Technology · United States

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

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

WordPress.org is the official website for WordPress, a leading open source content management system powering millions of websites globally. The platform offers flexible design tools, a powerful block editor, and an extensive ecosystem of themes and plugins, catering to a wide audience from individual creators to large enterprises. The website reflects a mature, well-established brand with a strong community focus and comprehensive resources for users and developers alike. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including the Gutenberg editor and integrates analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Jetpack Stats, ensuring a performant and accessible user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain protections in place, though DNSSEC is not enabled and some security policies are not publicly detailed. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy but lacks a visible cookie consent mechanism. Overall, WordPress.org demonstrates high business credibility, excellent content quality, and a robust technical foundation, making it a trustworthy and authoritative source in the CMS market.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of wordpress.net. 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 wordpress.net

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
42
Security headers
40
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
71

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

WordPress.org holds a dominant market position as the premier open source CMS platform, supported by a large global community and a rich ecosystem of plugins, themes, and learning resources. Its business model centers on open source software distribution, community engagement, and ecosystem development rather than direct monetization. The target audience spans from individual bloggers and small businesses to professional developers and large enterprises. The site showcases partnerships and integrations with major brands and platforms, reinforcing its industry leadership. Growth indicators include active community events, internship programs, and continuous platform enhancements. The absence of direct contact information suggests a focus on community-driven support channels and self-service resources.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a strong SSL configuration and domain registration protections such as clientDeleteProhibited and clientTransferProhibited statuses, which mitigate unauthorized domain changes. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, representing a potential area for DNS security improvement. No explicit security headers were detected in the provided data, and there is no public security policy or incident response information available on the site. The lack of a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page limits transparency for security researchers. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by publishing formal security policies, enabling DNSSEC, and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Consider publishing a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure guidelines to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
WordPress
Description
Open source software which you can use to easily create a beautiful website, blog, or app.
Key services
CMS platform, Themes, Plugins, Blocks, Community events, Documentation and learning resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress CMS, Gutenberg block editor, JavaScript, SVG, CSS, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
Gutenberg
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Jetpack Stats, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Jetpack Stats
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. Strong brand presence and community focus
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main page
  4. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  5. Use of modern web technologies and CMS
  6. Social media presence across multiple platforms
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page
  8. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and long-term operation
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the WordPress CMS platform using the Gutenberg block editor, with modern JavaScript and CSS technologies. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Jetpack Stats for analytics and tracking. The site is well-structured with valid HTML and CSS, optimized for mobile devices, and includes accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA labels. Performance appears fast with preloading and preconnecting optimizations. The technical stack is mature and well-maintained, though opportunities exist to enhance DNS security and HTTP header configurations. The site’s SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data, improving search engine visibility and social media sharing.
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. 75/100 +8Medium26 findingsView report
  2. 67/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wordpress.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 wordpress.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.