Skip to main content

Is rfc-editor.org a Scam? Security Check Results - RFC Editor Reviews

rfc-editor.org favicon

Is rfc-editor.org Safe? Security Analysis for RFC Editor

Check if rfc-editor.org is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

TechnologyN/asmall
WordPress 6.0.11jQuery 3.6.0Responsive Menu pluginMatomo Analytics
Analyzed 10/3/2025Completed 6:38:00 PM
63
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

The RFC Editor website serves as the authoritative platform for the publication and management of the RFC Series, which includes technical and organizational documents about the Internet. It supports multiple streams such as IETF, IRTF, IAB, Independent Submissions, and Editorial content. The site targets Internet engineers, researchers, and policy makers, providing document retrieval, errata management, and author resources. The business model is non-commercial, focusing on editorial and publication services for Internet standards. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and clear navigation, reflecting its authoritative market position. Technically, the site is built on WordPress 6.0.11 with jQuery and uses the Responsive Menu plugin alongside Matomo for analytics. The platform is web-based with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility are basic to good, with room for improvement in accessibility compliance. The site enforces HTTPS and uses secure form submissions but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates a solid posture with HTTPS and no exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks certain security headers and a published vulnerability disclosure policy. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed responses, but the site’s content and affiliations with recognized Internet organizations strongly indicate legitimacy. No WAF or blocking mechanisms were detected, and the site content is safe for general audiences. Overall, the RFC Editor website is a credible, authoritative resource with good technical and security foundations. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy compliance, and incident response transparency would enhance its security posture and trustworthiness.

Detected Technologies

WordPress 6.0.11jQuery 3.6.0Responsive Menu pluginMatomo Analytics

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

The RFC Editor occupies a unique niche as the official publisher of the RFC Series, a critical resource for Internet standards and protocols. Its market positioning is authoritative and non-commercial, serving a specialized audience of Internet professionals and researchers. The business model is focused on editorial and publication services rather than revenue generation. The site’s partnerships with IETF, IRTF, IAB, and ISOC reinforce its credibility and ecosystem integration. Growth indicators are stable given the ongoing need for Internet standards documentation. The partnership ecosystem is strong with recognized Internet governance bodies. Operationally, the site maintains a professional web presence with consistent branding and relevant content, supporting its mission effectively.

Extracted Contact Information

Marketing Intelligence Data

Email Addresses (2)

r*****@rfc-editor.org
r*****@rfc-editor.org

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and secure form handling. However, it lacks implementation of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options, which could mitigate certain attack vectors. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, limiting transparency for security researchers. Incident response contact information is not explicitly provided. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy but lacks cookie consent mechanisms. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

RFC Editor

Description:

The RFC Editor manages the RFC Series, which contains technical and organizational documents about the Internet, including specifications and policy documents from IETF, IRTF, IAB, Independent Submissions, and Editorial streams.

Key Services:
RFC document publicationDocument retrievalErrata managementAuthor resources and style guides
Content Quality:

good

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
WordPress 6.0.11jQuery 3.6.0Responsive Menu pluginMatomo Analytics
Frameworks:
WordPress
Platforms:
Web
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
85/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure form submission with POST
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Matomo
Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:good

Advertising & Marketing

Tracking Pixels:
Matomo
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:good
User Experience:good
Content Relevance:excellent
Navigation Clarity:good
Professionalism:good
Trustworthiness:high

Key Observations

1

Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

60/100
Score

Weak X-Frame-Options configuration

LOW

Current value: "SAMEORIGIN, SAMEORIGIN"

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

Sensitive data may be cached

LOW

Cache-Control header should include "no-store" for sensitive pages

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

53/100
Score

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Cookie Consent Banner found

HIGH

GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

No Data Protection Officer mentioned

LOW

Large organizations may need to designate a DPO under GDPR

Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

MEDIUM

Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy85% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
emailphone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

2/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

Critical sector without clear security compliance

HIGH

Detected sectors: transport, banking, digital

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

70/100
Score

No DKIM record found

MEDIUM

DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security
SPF Details
Record:
v=spf1 ip4:166.84.6.31 ip4:166.84.7.238 ip6:2602:f977:800:f7f6::/64 include:_spf.google.com include:spf.hostedrt.com ~all
DNS Lookups:2/10
Policy:~all

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

65/100
Score

SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

MEDIUM

SSL certificate expires in 48 days

Weak SSL Key Length

HIGH

SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

Mixed Content Detected

MEDIUM

2 resources loaded over insecure HTTP

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 2 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Certificate Details

Subject:rfc-editor.org
Issuer:WE1
Valid Until:11/20/2025 (48 days)
SANs:rfc-editor.org, *.rfc-editor.org

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

75/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

No DMARC Record

MEDIUM

DMARC policy not configured

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
27 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
low(222 days)
Protection Level
moderateDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:104.18.20.81, 104.18.21.81
AAAA Records:2606:4700::6812:1451, 2606:4700::6812:1551
Name Servers:
jill.ns.cloudflare.com
ken.ns.cloudflare.com
MX Records:
0: mail2.ietf.org
SOA:Serial: 2384778008, TTL: 1800s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:463ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 ip4:166.84.6.31 ip4:166.84.7.238 ip6:2602:f977:800:f7f6::/64 include:_spf.google.com include:spf.hostedrt.com ~all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

100/100
Score

Good Network Security Posture

LOW

No unnecessary services detected on common risky ports

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform (version 6.0.11) with jQuery 3.6.0 and uses a responsive menu plugin for navigation. Analytics are handled via Matomo, indicating a preference for privacy-respecting tools. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation clarity and professional design. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. The absence of advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates some technical debt in security and privacy compliance. The site does not expose sensitive data and uses secure POST methods for form submissions. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available from the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from modernization in security and privacy features.
Analyze Another Website