Skip to main content

Security report for 50by40.org

50by40 · Non-profit · United States

High risk. 4 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

50by40 is a US-based non-profit coalition focused on reducing global production and consumption of animal products by 50% by 2040. The organization operates as an advocacy and partnership network, providing resources, reports, and hosting events to promote sustainable and compassionate food systems. Their market position is strengthened by UN Environment Programme and UNFCCC observer accreditations, reflecting credibility and international recognition. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and several plugins, offering a modern and responsive user experience with good SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enabled and domain protections, though DNSSEC is not enabled and security headers are absent, suggesting room for improvement. Privacy compliance is adequate with clear privacy and cookie policies, though no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present. Contact is primarily via web forms, with no direct emails or phone numbers published. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-aligned with its non-profit mission.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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 50by40.org

This scan found 19 issues across 6 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
85
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
73
Average
60
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

The organization targets environmental advocates, policy makers, and the general public interested in sustainable food systems. Its business model is non-profit advocacy and coalition building, leveraging partnerships with international bodies and NGOs. Revenue streams likely include donations and grants, though not explicitly stated. The partnership ecosystem includes UN bodies and recognized environmental organizations, enhancing influence and reach. Growth indicators include active publication of reports and hosting of events. The website content and testimonials reflect a collaborative and multi-sectoral approach to meat reduction and climate change mitigation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain status protections such as clientDeleteProhibited. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security are gaps that could be addressed. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available, which could impact transparency. Forms are secured with required fields but no explicit anti-CSRF tokens or CAPTCHA mechanisms were identified. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit informational site but could be enhanced with additional best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website against common attacks.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
50by40
Description
50by40 is a coalition of organisations dedicated to cutting the global production and consumption of animal products by 50% by 2040, working towards a fair, healthy, and compassionate food system.
Key services
Advocacy for meat reduction, Network building among like-minded organizations, Publication of reports and resources, Hosting and participating in events
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, jQuery, YouTube Embed Plus, WP Event Manager, Essential Addons for Elementor
Frameworks
WordPress, Elementor
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of clientDeleteProhibited and other domain status flags
  • No exposed sensitive data detected
  • Secure forms with required fields

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Elementor Pro
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed non-profit advocacy platform.
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and relevant resources.
  3. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via web form only.
  4. Security policies and incident response information are not explicitly provided.
  5. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a minor security gap.
  6. Use of modern WordPress plugins and Elementor for content management.
  7. Social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
  8. UN accreditation badges add trust and legitimacy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and several plugins including WP Event Manager and YouTube Embed Plus. The tech stack supports responsive design and good SEO practices. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple plugins and media content such as slideshows and videos. Accessibility is basic but present, with room for improvement. Hosting appears to be with GoDaddy, inferred from WHOIS data and DNS parking. The site uses Google Analytics for tracking. There is no evidence of technical debt or deprecated technologies, but security enhancements and performance optimizations could be pursued to improve resilience and user experience.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with 50by40.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 50by40.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.