Skip to main content

Security report for coalition-s.org

cOAlition S · Education · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

cOAlition S operates as an international consortium promoting Plan S, an initiative to accelerate full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. The organization targets research funders, academic institutions, and publishers to ensure publicly funded research is openly accessible. The website reflects a professional and authoritative presence with clear information about their mission, principles, and tools supporting Open Access. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, leveraging modern web technologies such as jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Analytics, and reCAPTCHA for security and analytics. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and uses HTTPS, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. However, some security headers are missing, which could be improved to enhance security posture. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses reCAPTCHA to protect forms, but lacks explicit security policies or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Privacy and cookie policies are present and indicate GDPR compliance, supporting user privacy and regulatory adherence. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with a strong business credibility and good technical implementation. The main limitation is the absence of WHOIS data, which restricts domain registration trust analysis. Strategic improvements in security headers and explicit security policies would further strengthen the site's security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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

  4. 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 coalition-s.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
40
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
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

cOAlition S holds a leading position in the open access publishing sector, advocating for policy changes and providing tools to support compliance with Plan S mandates. Their business model is non-profit and consortium-based, focusing on education, advocacy, and resource provision rather than commercial revenue. The target audience includes research funders, academic researchers, and publishers globally. The presence of multiple international funders as supporters indicates a broad partnership ecosystem and strong market influence. The organization demonstrates growth through continuous updates, news, and tool development, positioning itself as a key player in the open access movement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of reCAPTCHA for form protection. However, the absence of several important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No direct contact channels for incident response or vulnerability disclosure were found, which could hinder timely security communication. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, indicating good data protection practices. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the organization's profile but could benefit from enhanced security controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to minimize vulnerability exposure.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
cOAlition S
Description
Plan S is an initiative for Open Access publishing launched in September 2018, supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funding and performing organisations. It mandates that from 2021, scientific publications funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms.
Key services
Open Access policy advocacy, Implementation guidance for Plan S, Tools such as Journal Checker Tool, Resources and news updates
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Analytics, reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
WordPress CMS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain registration insights.
  3. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies.
  4. Content is focused on open access scientific publishing and consortium activities.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in main HTML; contact via form.
  6. Privacy and cookie policies are present and indicate GDPR compliance.
  7. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found.
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  9. Website is professionally designed with consistent branding and clear navigation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a modern front-end stack including jQuery and Font Awesome icons. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and uses Google's reCAPTCHA for bot protection on forms. The site loads external resources from reputable CDNs and Google Fonts, contributing to performance and reliability. The design is responsive and mobile-friendly, with good SEO practices such as meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with potential optimization opportunities in resource loading and caching. The absence of some security headers and limited hosting information suggests technical improvements are possible to enhance security and operational robustness.
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 coalition-s.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 coalition-s.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.