Skip to main content

Security report for bgci.org

Botanic Gardens Conservation International · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and developing efficient, cost-effective plant conservation strategies through botanic gardens worldwide. The website serves as a professional platform to support conservationists, researchers, and the general public interested in plant conservation. BGCI positions itself as a global leader in this niche environmental sector, offering key services such as conservation promotion, networking, and resource development for botanic gardens. Technically, the website is built on WordPress 6.4.3 with modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and Cookiebot for consent management. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with comprehensive metadata and structured data, and it is mobile-optimized with a moderate performance profile. However, some accessibility features are basic and could be improved. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with an excellent SSL configuration and implements cookie consent mechanisms. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries in the HTML content. However, security headers are not explicitly detected, and there is no visible security or incident response policy, which are areas for improvement. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional, with a strong focus on its mission. The lack of explicit privacy and terms of service pages, as well as contact information, slightly reduces privacy compliance and business credibility scores. The WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, which is typical for non-profit organizations and does not raise immediate concerns. Strategic recommendations include adding explicit privacy and terms pages, enhancing security headers, and providing clear contact channels for security incidents.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

5 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  3. Network security

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

    • 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

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching bgci.org

This scan found 26 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
55

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

BGCI operates in the non-profit environmental conservation sector, focusing on plant conservation through botanic gardens. Its market positioning is strong as a global leader in this specialized field. The business model revolves around advocacy, resource sharing, and network building rather than commercial sales. Revenue streams likely include grants, donations, and partnerships. The target customer segments include botanic gardens, environmental researchers, conservationists, and educational institutions. The organization demonstrates growth potential through digital presence and partnerships with major platforms like Google and Tableau. The partnership ecosystem includes integrations with analytics and marketing tools but no direct business partner domains were identified in the content.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, reflecting compliance with basic privacy regulations. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. There is no visible incident response or security policy, nor a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file, which are recommended for transparency and readiness. The use of third-party scripts like Google Analytics and Vimeo introduces typical tracking risks but is managed via consent. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced with additional policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information for security incidents and designate an incident response contact channel.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and transparency.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from external libraries and tracking services.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Botanic Gardens Conservation International
Description
BGCI’s work aims to promote and develop a more efficient, cost effective and rational approach to plant conservation in botanic gardens.
Key services
Plant conservation promotion, Development of efficient conservation approaches, Support and networking for botanic gardens
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.4.3, jQuery 3.7.1, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot Consent Management
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
Cookiebot, Twitter, Vimeo
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed cookie categorization
  3. No explicit privacy or terms of service pages found in the provided content
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  7. Website content is professional and relevant to botanic garden conservation
  8. External scripts include Google Analytics, Cookiebot, Vimeo, Twitter
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content
  10. SEO metadata and structured data are well implemented
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress 6.4.3, leveraging jQuery and modern JavaScript modules for enhanced user experience. SEO is managed via the Yoast SEO plugin, with well-structured metadata and JSON-LD schema for rich search results. Cookiebot is used for GDPR-compliant cookie consent management, categorizing cookies into necessary, preferences, statistics, and marketing. The site loads scripts asynchronously and uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing tags. Performance is moderate, with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Hosting provider details are not explicit in the content. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained but could benefit from enhanced accessibility and security header implementation.
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 bgci.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 bgci.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.