Ranking
This lists whoever had themselves audited and wanted it shown. The grade sums the audit up — 1 is the best, as at school in Germany. The three numbers beside it are not points but defects found: there, 0 is the best.
Three things about it matter more than the order:
- Only those who asked for it. Typing an address into a form is not enough. Whoever stands here has additionally shown control of the domain — through a TXT record in the DNS or a file on their own server — and can remove the entry again at any time with one click.
- Only those with at least a 2. That means the three values together are at most 60, and no single one above 30. One field may be weaker than the others, but not entirely adrift: 0 + 0 + 60 is not green, it is unbalanced. That is the same strictness as for the audit seal, and the reason the list is worth something — a list everybody gets into says nothing.
- Values only, no findings. What was found in detail is not here and never will be. A sorted list of other people’s weaknesses would be a shopping list for attackers, and those affected would have supplied it themselves.
| Domain | Grade | Risk valueSecurity and privacy | Action neededFindability | Barrier valueAccessibility | Audited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| conct.de | 1.0very good | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2026-09-26 |
| feif.space | 1.0very good | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2026-09-26 |
| choozy.io | 1.1very good | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2026-09-26 |
| snackomatdresden.de | 1.2very good | 7 | 0 | 5 | 2026-10-08 |
| hanf-pate.de | 1.2very good | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2026-10-08 |