Skip to main content

Security report for wordpress.org

WordPress · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

WordPress.org is the official website for the WordPress open source content management system, a globally recognized platform powering millions of websites. It offers a comprehensive ecosystem including themes, plugins, blocks, and extensive community resources. The platform targets a broad audience from individual creators and small businesses to large enterprises and developers. WordPress.org maintains a strong market position as a leading open source CMS with a vibrant community and continuous innovation. Technically, the website leverages modern web technologies such as the Gutenberg block editor, structured data (JSON-LD), and asynchronous loading of analytics scripts, ensuring fast performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain registration protections, though improvements can be made by enabling DNSSEC and adding explicit security headers. Privacy compliance is partially met with a comprehensive privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, reflecting the maturity of the WordPress project.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching wordpress.org

This scan found 15 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
0
Security headers
40
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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 technology entity in the CMS market, offering open source software and fostering a global community. Its business model revolves around free software distribution supported by a vast ecosystem of plugins, themes, and community contributions. The platform benefits from strong brand recognition and partnerships with major organizations, as evidenced by showcased clients like NASA and Microsoft. Revenue streams are indirect, primarily through associated services and hosting providers. The target customers include developers, content creators, enterprises, and hobbyists. WordPress.org's strategic advantage lies in its extensibility, community engagement, and continuous innovation. The website's extensive documentation, learning resources, and event organization further strengthen its ecosystem and market presence.

Security posture

The security posture of WordPress.org is robust, with HTTPS enforced site-wide and domain registration protections such as clientDeleteProhibited status. However, the absence of DNSSEC and explicit security headers like Content Security Policy or HSTS represents areas for enhancement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site uses reputable analytics and tracking services with asynchronous loading to minimize performance impact. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are not explicitly linked, which could be improved to enhance transparency and trust. Overall, WordPress.org demonstrates a mature security approach suitable for a high-profile open source project but should consider adopting additional best practices to further harden its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish explicit security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add a visible cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  4. Publish a clear vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide accessible incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
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, Google Tag Manager, Jetpack, Open Graph, JSON-LD structured data
Frameworks
Gutenberg
Platforms
WordPress.org
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with async loading

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 no blocking mechanisms.
  2. Strong brand presence with consistent logos and social media links.
  3. Comprehensive use of modern web technologies and structured data.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed on homepage.
  5. Privacy policy is present and comprehensive; cookie consent mechanism is missing.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies linked.
  7. No visible vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file.
  8. Domain 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, leveraging modern JavaScript modules and SVG graphics for a responsive and visually appealing design. It employs structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and social media integration via Open Graph and Twitter Cards. Performance is optimized with asynchronous script loading and preconnect/dns-prefetch hints. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive navigation and accessibility features like skip links and ARIA labels. Hosting details are not explicit, but the domain registrar is MarkMonitor Inc., a reputable provider. The technical implementation reflects a modern, well-maintained infrastructure with opportunities to enhance security headers and privacy compliance.
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. 71/100Medium29 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.