Skip to main content

Security report for birdlife.org

BirdLife International · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

BirdLife International is a globally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to bird conservation and environmental protection. It operates as the largest international partnership for nature conservation, focusing on research, advocacy, and public engagement to protect bird species and their habitats worldwide. The website reflects a mature and professional digital presence, targeting conservationists, researchers, donors, and the general public interested in environmental issues. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and leverages modern technologies including Google Analytics, Cookiebot for consent management, Cloudflare Turnstile for bot protection, and Vimeo for media content. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, ensuring a positive user experience across devices. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs cookie consent mechanisms aligned with GDPR requirements. While explicit security headers are not fully detailed in the provided data, the use of reputable third-party services and absence of exposed sensitive data indicate a solid security posture. However, the lack of publicly available WHOIS data and absence of explicit security policies or incident response contacts suggest areas for improvement in transparency. Overall, BirdLife International's website is trustworthy, professionally maintained, and compliant with privacy standards. The primary risks relate to enhancing security header implementation and publishing more detailed security and incident response information to bolster user trust and compliance.

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

2 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 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching birdlife.org

This scan found 16 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
65
Security headers
75
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
81

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

BirdLife International holds a strong market position as the leading global bird conservation partnership. Its business model is non-profit, relying on partnerships, fundraising, and advocacy to drive conservation efforts. The organization targets a diverse audience including environmental professionals, donors, and the public. The website's integration with fundraising tools and marketing platforms like Fundraise Up and Mailchimp supports its revenue streams. The presence of multiple international languages and extensive content indicates a broad global reach. Strategic partnerships with platforms like Vimeo and Google enhance content delivery and analytics capabilities. The organization's digital maturity is evident, though further transparency in business and security policies could enhance credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent aligned with GDPR, and use of bot mitigation technologies such as Cloudflare Turnstile. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options were not confirmed, representing an opportunity for improvement. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact reduces transparency and may impact user trust. The use of reputable third-party analytics and media services is well managed, but continuous monitoring for third-party vulnerabilities is recommended. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from enhanced documentation and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and explicitly configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  5. Enhance visibility of data protection officer contact details and certifications to demonstrate compliance and professionalism.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BirdLife International
Description
BirdLife International is the largest international Partnership for nature conservation focused on bird conservation and environmental protection.
Key services
Bird conservation programs, Environmental advocacy, Research and monitoring, Public awareness campaigns, Fundraising for conservation projects
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Analytics, Cookiebot, Cloudflare Turnstile, Vimeo, jQuery, ElasticPress, Mailchimp for WP, Genesis Blocks
Frameworks
WordPress CMS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • Use of Cloudflare Turnstile captcha for bot protection
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, New Relic
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Meta Platforms, Inc., Google AdSense
Tracking pixels
Cookiebot, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Pixel, YouTube tracking
Marketing tools
Fundraise Up, Mailchimp
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with modern security practices
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy present
  3. No WHOIS data available publicly, likely privacy protected
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in provided HTML
  5. Use of multiple reputable third-party services for analytics and media
  6. No signs of malware, phishing, or suspicious content
  7. Content is focused on environmental and bird conservation
  8. No terms of service page explicitly found
  9. No explicit security policy or incident response info found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, ElasticPress, and various plugins for search filtering, mailchimp integration, and image comparison. It uses Google Analytics for traffic analysis and Cookiebot for cookie consent management, ensuring GDPR compliance. Media content is served via Vimeo, and bot protection is implemented using Cloudflare Turnstile. The site shows good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple third-party scripts and media content. There is an opportunity to optimize loading times and further improve SEO by enhancing meta tags and structured data. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable web presence.
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. 81/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with birdlife.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 birdlife.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.