Methodology & Standards

Every grade traces to a measured fact, mapped to a published standard.

The Website Report Card is not an opinion of your site. It reads objective, independently‑verifiable signals — your site's actual HTTP response headers and page markup — and scores them against the same criteria used by OWASP, Mozilla, Google, the W3C, and the security & compliance frameworks below.

OWASP Secure Headers Mozilla Observatory NIST CSF 2.0 NIST SP 800-53 PCI-DSS v4.0 HIPAA Security Rule CIS Controls v8 schema.org · W3C

How grading works

Two stages. The first is fully deterministic — the same measurement anyone can reproduce. The second explains and prioritizes what the first found.

Stage 1 · Measure

Collect objective signals

Your URL is fetched server‑side and its actual HTTP response headers and rendered HTML are parsed. We record facts: which security headers are present, whether HTTPS is enforced, which structured‑data types exist, heading and alt‑text coverage, and so on. No judgment yet — just what is and isn't there.

Stage 2 · Grade

Score against rubrics

Those measured facts are scored A–F per category and turned into prioritized, plain‑English fixes. Because the inputs are objective, every grade traces back to a signal you can check yourself — it is not a subjective impression of the site.

What is actually measured

The exact signals the tool collects, by category. This is the whole list — nothing is inferred beyond it.

Security
HTTPS enforcement, and the presence/value of Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, X-XSS-Protection, Cross-Origin-Opener/Embedder/Resource-Policy, and Permissions-Policy — plus Cache-Control, server‑version disclosure, and cookie‑consent / privacy‑policy presence.
SEO
Title & length, meta description & length, canonical, robots directive, viewport, H1/H2 hierarchy, image alt coverage, and internal‑link count.
AEO
JSON‑LD structured‑data types, FAQPage/HowTo schema, and author / E‑E‑A‑T signals for AI‑engine citation.
Performance
Render‑blocking scripts, stylesheet count, favicon, iframe count, and cache headers.
Best practices
Mobile viewport, Open Graph & Twitter cards, and page structure.

Mapped to recognized standards

Each check answers to a published authority. These are the primary references a technical reviewer would expect.

What we checkRecognized standard / authority
Security response headersOWASP Secure Headers Project; Mozilla Web Security Guidelines / HTTP Observatory; MDN Web Docs. Missing headers = OWASP Top 10 A05:2021 (Security Misconfiguration).
HTTPS / TLS in transitGoogle (HTTPS ranking signal, 2014); NIST SP 800-52 Rev 2 (TLS guidance); browser "Not Secure" enforcement.
Structured data (schema)schema.org vocabulary; Google structured-data / rich-results guidelines.
Title / meta / canonical / robotsGoogle Search Essentials; W3C HTML living standard.
Headings & image alt textW3C WCAG 2.2 (accessibility); Google Search Essentials.
Render-blocking / caching / weightGoogle Core Web Vitals & Lighthouse; web.dev performance guidance.
Open Graph / social markupOpen Graph protocol (ogp.me).

Security & compliance control mapping

The security signals above are the exact web‑facing controls named in the major frameworks. The transport‑encryption row is the clearest line from "a header is missing" to "a named control is unmet."

SignalFramework control(s) it evidences
HTTPS / TLS
in transit
NIST CSF 2.0 PR.DS-02 · NIST 800-53 SC-8 · PCI-DSS v4.0 Req 4 · HIPAA §164.312(e)(1) · CIS v8 3.10 · NIST 800-171 / CMMC 3.13.8, 3.13.11
Security headers
CSP · HSTS · XFO · …
OWASP ASVS V14 · NIST 800-53 SC-7, SC-18 · PCI-DSS v4.0 Req 6 · HIPAA §164.312(c)(1) · CIS v8 Control 16
Server disclosure & config NIST 800-53 CM-6 · PCI-DSS v4.0 Req 2

Framework references indicate the control families these web‑facing signals support; they are not a substitute for a full audit. A failing header is corroborating evidence of an unmet control, not a formal compliance finding.

Don't take our word for it — verify it

The security measurements are objective and reproducible.

Anyone can confirm the same facts the grade is built on:

Inspect the response headers directly: curl -I https://yourdomain.com

Run the same site through Mozilla HTTP Observatory or securityheaders.com and compare.

Open your browser's DevTools → Network → the document request → Headers.

If a header is missing in those tools, it is missing in ours — and vice‑versa. That reproducibility is the point.

Scope & boundaries

The Report Card is a fast, free posture indicator — accurate about what it measures, and honest about what it does not.

What it does not do. It checks page‑level HTTPS and HTTP security headers. It does not test TLS cipher configuration, scan for exposed admin paths, or evaluate email authentication. Email‑authentication posture (SPF / DKIM / DMARC) and DNS‑level checks are covered by Securafy's separate Domain Scanner. The grade is a conversation‑starter, not a formal audit or penetration test.

References

OWASP Secure Headers Project — owasp.org/www-project-secure-headers
OWASP Top 10 (2021) — owasp.org/Top10
OWASP ASVS — owasp.org
Mozilla Web Security & HTTP Observatory — infosec.mozilla.org
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 — nist.gov/cyberframework
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 (SC-8, SC-7, SC-18, CM-6) — csrc.nist.gov
NIST SP 800-52 Rev 2 (TLS) — csrc.nist.gov
NIST SP 800-171 / CMMC 2.0 (3.13.x) — csrc.nist.gov
PCI-DSS v4.0 — pcisecuritystandards.org
HIPAA Security Rule — 45 CFR §164.312 — hhs.gov
CIS Controls v8 — cisecurity.org/controls
Google Search Essentials & Core Web Vitals — developers.google.com · web.dev
schema.org — schema.org
W3C HTML / WCAG 2.2 — w3.org
Open Graph protocol — ogp.me

Run your site through the Report Card

Get a full 100-point grade across SEO, AEO, Security, Performance, and Best Practices — free, no email required. Then download a written report you can share with your team.

Questions about your findings? Call (330) 906-8888