Skip to main content

Security report for civicsciencefellows.org

Civic Science Fellows · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Civic Science Fellows is a US-based non-profit organization focused on fostering leadership and collaboration between science and society through its fellowship program. The website presents a professional and well-structured platform built on WordPress, hosted on DigitalOcean, with a clear focus on community engagement and educational content. The technical infrastructure is modern and mobile-optimized, though performance is moderate. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for enhanced protection. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies, and no GDPR indicators are present. Contact information is limited to a contact form and newsletter signup, with no direct emails or phone numbers provided. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe for general audiences but would benefit from improved privacy and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching civicsciencefellows.org

This scan found 27 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
60
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
50

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 Civic Science Fellows program occupies a niche in the non-profit sector, targeting researchers, civic leaders, and philanthropic organizations interested in civic science. Its business model centers on leadership development and fostering collaborations rather than commercial transactions. The website supports this with resources, stories, and a newsletter to engage its community. The organization appears small and focused, with no evidence of subsidiaries or parent companies. The lack of direct contact details and privacy policies may limit trust for some users, but the consistent branding and clear mission statement support credibility. The use of Mailchimp indicates a basic marketing tool for outreach. No partnerships or related domains were identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and has domain transfer protections, which are positive security indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which is a gap in security transparency. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries based on the provided content. Forms are standard and do not show insecure practices. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved with additional controls and policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance browser security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Add explicit contact information such as official emails and phone numbers to improve transparency and user confidence.
  5. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to demonstrate security readiness and encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Civic Science Fellows
Description
We are co-creating the Civic Science Fellows program to invest in a new cohort of leaders and foster new collaborations, allowing science and research to more meaningfully connect with diverse communities and our shared civic life.
Key services
Leadership fellowship program, Community collaboration facilitation, Resource sharing, Storytelling and media about civic science
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.7.1, JavaScript, CSS, SVG
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Mailchimp
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed WordPress site for a non-profit fellowship program
  2. Content is focused on civic science leadership and community engagement
  3. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found, only contact form and newsletter signup
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present
  6. No security headers detected in HTML content
  7. SSL is enabled and domain status is clientTransferProhibited
  8. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a minor security weakness
  9. No advertising or tracking scripts detected except Mailchimp for newsletter
  10. No social media links explicitly found in the HTML content
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.7.1, using standard web technologies including JavaScript, CSS, and SVG for graphics. Hosting is provided by DigitalOcean, a reputable cloud provider. The site uses Mailchimp for newsletter management, indicating integration with third-party marketing tools. The HTML content is valid and includes proper meta tags for SEO and social media sharing (Open Graph and Twitter cards). The site is mobile-optimized and accessible with screen reader support elements. Performance is moderate, likely due to image sizes and standard WordPress overhead. No major technical debts or deprecated technologies were detected. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and implement privacy compliance features.
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 civicsciencefellows.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 civicsciencefellows.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.