Skip to main content

Security report for apache.org

The Apache Software Foundation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is a well-established non-profit organization founded in 1995, dedicated to supporting and stewarding a vast ecosystem of open source software projects. The foundation operates primarily through volunteer efforts and sponsorships, providing infrastructure, governance, and community resources to over 320 active projects and more than 8,400 committers worldwide. The website reflects this mission with comprehensive project listings, community engagement resources, and educational content aimed at developers, contributors, and enterprises leveraging open source technologies. Technically, the website is built using modern web standards including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and Bootstrap for responsive design. It is hosted on Amazon AWS infrastructure, uses Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics, and incorporates a custom search solution. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility features, contributing to a positive user experience. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs domain status protections, and avoids intrusive tracking cookies. However, it lacks DNSSEC, security headers, and a formal security policy or incident response contact details publicly visible. The privacy policy is comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present. No vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected. Overall, the ASF website is a high-quality, trustworthy resource that effectively supports its community and mission. Strategic recommendations include enhancing DNS security, implementing security headers, publishing a dedicated security policy, and adding cookie consent mechanisms to further strengthen compliance and security posture.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of apache.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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 apache.org

This scan found 21 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. See sample alerts.

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
45
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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
  • 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 Apache Software Foundation holds a leading position in the open source software ecosystem as a non-profit steward of hundreds of critical projects. Its business model relies on volunteer contributions and sponsorships, enabling sustainable development and infrastructure maintenance. The foundation targets open source developers, enterprises, and the broader technology community, providing tools, governance, and events to foster collaboration. The extensive project portfolio and active community contribute to its competitive advantage and market influence. Partnerships with community organizations and events like Community Over Code reinforce its ecosystem. The foundation's longevity and transparent governance enhance its credibility and growth potential.

Security posture

The ASF website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforcement and domain registration protections. The use of Matomo analytics without cookies indicates privacy-conscious data collection. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security represents areas for improvement. No direct contact emails for security or incident response were found, and no security.txt file is published, which could hinder vulnerability reporting. Overall, the site shows good security hygiene but would benefit from formalizing security policies and enhancing technical controls to align with best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy page and provide clear incident response contact information (e.g., security@apache.org).
  4. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve transparency.
  5. Consider publishing a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Apache Software Foundation
Description
The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization run almost exclusively by volunteers overseeing hundreds of open source projects. It develops, stewards, and incubates hundreds of freely available, enterprise-grade projects that serve as the backbone for widely used applications in computing.
Key services
Open source project stewardship, Community development and support, Infrastructure maintenance, Events and conferences, Educational resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Bootstrap, Matomo Analytics, Pagefind search
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by URL)
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited and clientTransferProhibited
  • No cookies used in Matomo analytics (privacy conscious)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Strong emphasis on community and open source projects.
  3. Comprehensive project listings and resources available.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  5. Good privacy practices observed in analytics usage.
  6. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed.
  8. Social media presence is broad and consistent with brand.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern, responsive front-end stack using Bootstrap and custom CSS, with JavaScript enhancing interactivity and search functionality. Hosting on AWS DNS infrastructure suggests reliable and scalable backend support. The use of Matomo analytics reflects a commitment to privacy. Performance is optimized with asynchronous script loading and minimal external dependencies. No CMS was detected, indicating a custom or static site approach, which reduces attack surface. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are well implemented, supporting broad user reach and compliance. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and DNS configurations to further reduce technical risks.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 59/100 −16Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 75/100Medium24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with apache.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 apache.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.