Skip to main content

Security report for cifor-icraf.org

CIFOR-ICRAF · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

CIFOR-ICRAF is a prominent non-profit international research organization focused on forestry, agroforestry, and landscape restoration to address global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security. The organization operates under the CGIAR umbrella and targets researchers, policymakers, and environmental stakeholders worldwide. Their website serves as a comprehensive knowledge hub offering publications, news, events, and multimedia resources. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern frameworks like Bootstrap and integrates analytics and consent management tools, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though explicit security policies and WHOIS transparency are lacking. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-optimized for user experience and compliance, but would benefit from enhanced transparency in domain registration and contact information.

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

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 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 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

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

Keep watching cifor-icraf.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. 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
82
Security headers
40
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
77

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention cifor-icraf.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
192
Employees
0
Customers
173
Third parties
19
Weak passwords
10%

10 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for cifor-icraf.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 holds a leading position in the global environmental research sector, leveraging partnerships and a broad knowledge dissemination model. Their business model is non-profit, focusing on research outputs and policy influence rather than commercial revenue. The website's extensive content and multilingual support indicate a global reach and commitment to accessibility. The presence of multiple partner domains and event participation highlights a strong ecosystem engagement. However, the absence of visible direct contact details and incomplete WHOIS data may limit some stakeholder trust and engagement opportunities.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent with granular controls, and use of reputable analytics and tracking services. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of security headers and absence of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies represent gaps in security maturity. The missing WHOIS data also raises concerns about domain registration transparency. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by formalizing security policies and enhancing domain registration visibility.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance browser security.
  2. Publish explicit security and incident response policies on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.
  4. Enhance visibility of contact information, including dedicated security and compliance contacts, to foster trust and facilitate communication.
  5. Investigate and resolve WHOIS data unavailability to improve domain registration transparency and legitimacy.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CIFOR-ICRAF
Description
The Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF) harnesses the power of trees, forests and agroforestry landscapes to address the most pressing global challenges of our time – biodiversity loss, climate change, food security, livelihoods and inequity. CIFOR and ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
Key services
Research publications, Knowledge sharing, Events and conferences, Policy engagement, Global landscape restoration initiatives
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, jQuery 3.7.1, Bootstrap, Popper.js, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, CookieYes Consent Management
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and analytics scripts from reputable sources

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
doubleclick.net, Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar
Marketing tools
CookieYes
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on homepage or footer
  4. No explicit terms of service page found
  5. Use of multiple analytics and tracking services with user consent
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain trust verification
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform with Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for client-side scripting. It integrates Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing purposes, all managed with a robust cookie consent mechanism via CookieYes. Performance is moderate with preconnect hints and lazy loading for images. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed with proper meta tags, structured data (JSON-LD), and multilingual support. The site lacks explicit hosting provider information and some advanced security headers, which could be areas for technical improvement.
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 cifor-icraf.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 cifor-icraf.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.