Skip to main content

Security report for wordpress.org

DNStination, Inc. · 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 and blogging platform used by millions worldwide. The platform offers flexible design tools, a powerful block editor, and an extensive library of themes and plugins, catering to a broad audience from individual creators to large enterprises. The website serves as a hub for downloads, community engagement, learning resources, and showcases, reinforcing WordPress's market leadership in the CMS space. Technically, the site is built on WordPress itself, leveraging modern web technologies including the Gutenberg block editor, JavaScript, and CSS. It integrates analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Jetpack Stats, and is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS with strong domain registration protections but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers in the provided data. Privacy compliance is strong with a comprehensive privacy policy, though cookie consent mechanisms and terms of service pages are not explicitly found. Overall, WordPress.org demonstrates a mature, professional digital presence with high trustworthiness and excellent content quality.

Scanned

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

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 operates as an essential entity in the technology sector, specifically in open source software and web publishing. Its business model revolves around providing free software with optional enterprise services and fostering a global community ecosystem. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its extensibility, community support, and brand recognition. Revenue streams likely include enterprise hosting partnerships, premium services, and merchandise sales. The target customers range from individual bloggers and small businesses to large enterprises. The site also supports a vibrant ecosystem of developers, contributors, and partners, enhancing growth and innovation. Strategic observations include strong community engagement, extensive educational resources, and a well-maintained showcase of high-profile users, positioning WordPress as a dominant player in the CMS market.

Security posture

The security posture of WordPress.org is robust, with HTTPS enforced and domain registration locked against unauthorized changes. However, the absence of DNSSEC and explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy or Strict-Transport-Security in the provided data represents areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The site lacks publicly visible incident response or security policy documentation, which could enhance transparency and trust. Privacy compliance is well addressed through a comprehensive privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are missing. Overall, the site reflects a mature security culture but could benefit from enhanced DNS security and published security governance documents.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and enhance domain security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency.
  3. Implement a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  4. Add a clearly accessible terms of service page to clarify user agreements.
  5. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
DNStination, Inc.
Description
Open source software which you can use to easily create a beautiful website, blog, or app.
Key services
Website creation, Blogging platform, Content management system, Themes, Plugins, Community events and learning
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

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

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

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

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 modern design
  2. Strong brand presence with extensive community and developer resources
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main page
  4. Privacy policy is present and comprehensive
  5. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  6. No terms of service page explicitly linked
  7. Security headers not explicitly visible in provided data
  8. DNSSEC not enabled, which is a minor security gap
  9. Use of Google Tag Manager and Jetpack for analytics and tracking
  10. Multiple social media accounts linked, indicating active engagement
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the WordPress CMS platform using the Gutenberg block editor, with modern JavaScript and CSS technologies. It employs Google Tag Manager and Jetpack for analytics and tracking. The site demonstrates fast performance, excellent mobile optimization, and good accessibility features. The HTML and CSS are valid and well-structured, supporting SEO best practices with appropriate meta tags and Open Graph data. The site uses SVG logos and fonts loaded from global font services. Technical risks are minimal, though the lack of DNSSEC and some security headers could be addressed to reduce attack surface. The infrastructure appears stable and scalable, supporting a large global user base.
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. 64/100 −7Medium24 findingsView report
  2. 71/100 +5Medium29 findingsView report
  3. 66/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wordpress.org. 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.org.

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.