privacytools.io site fails on mozilla obervatory #151

Closed
opened 2017-01-04 14:16:02 +00:00 by p43b1 · 7 comments
p43b1 commented 2017-01-04 14:16:02 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

The site privacytools.io gets an awful score on mozilla oberservatory

https://observatory.mozilla.org/analyze.html?host=www.privacytools.io

The site privacytools.io gets an awful score on mozilla oberservatory https://observatory.mozilla.org/analyze.html?host=www.privacytools.io
ghost commented 2017-01-04 14:21:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Thanks. All the points we lost are because of headers. Not sure whether this can be improved, as we use CloudFlare. @privacytoolsIO can you add headers with CF?

Thanks. All the points we lost are because of headers. Not sure whether this can be improved, as we use CloudFlare. @privacytoolsIO can you add headers with CF?
Vincevrp commented 2018-11-25 20:13:12 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

The website also has a bad score on gtmetrix. Prehaps @privacytoolsIO can optimize some of these issues?

The website also has a bad score on [gtmetrix](https://gtmetrix.com/). Prehaps @privacytoolsIO can optimize some of these issues?
ghost commented 2018-11-25 20:14:42 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Doesn't GH support HTTPS without CF now?

Doesn't GH support HTTPS without CF now?
Vincevrp commented 2018-11-25 20:17:08 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Doesn't GH support HTTPS without CF now?

It does but Github cache settings aren't optimal, I think you could better optimize it with CF. Though if CF is seen as a privacy issue, we'd be better of without it.

> Doesn't GH support HTTPS without CF now? It does but Github cache settings aren't optimal, I think you could better optimize it with CF. Though if CF is seen as a privacy issue, we'd be better of without it.
nikhiljha commented 2018-11-25 20:18:07 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

GitHub's server also scores an F on observatory for similar reasons.

GitHub's server also scores an F on observatory for similar reasons.

The website also has a bad score on gtmetrix. Prehaps @privacytoolsIO can optimize some of these issues?

Okay, here you go:

image

We also score fine on SSL Labs. I don't think Mozilla Observatory is a big deal since we redirect to HTTPS, nor something that we can fix while on GitHub Pages.

We could probably consider implementing HSTS though.

>The website also has a bad score on gtmetrix. Prehaps @privacytoolsIO can optimize some of these issues? Okay, [here you go](https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.privacytools.io/wgszB4lW): [![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3637842/55269515-518d5400-5262-11e9-9c36-038ec2030b42.png)](https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.privacytools.io/wgszB4lW) We also [score fine](https://globalsign.ssllabs.com/analyze.html?d=www.privacytools.io&s=104.28.22.220&latest) on SSL Labs. I don't *think* Mozilla Observatory is a big deal since we redirect to HTTPS, nor something that we can fix while on GitHub Pages. We could probably consider implementing HSTS though.

Fixed, we now score an A on Mozilla Observatory and SSL Labs.

Fixed, we now score an A on Mozilla Observatory and SSL Labs.
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#151
No description provided.