Skip to main content

Security report for crfb.org

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget · Government · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a well-established nonpartisan, non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public and policymakers on fiscal policy issues. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence, offering a variety of educational resources, interactive tools, and detailed fiscal policy analysis. The organization targets a broad audience including the general public, researchers, and government stakeholders. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies and analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices and clear navigation. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and includes some security headers, but lacks explicit advanced security policies such as Content Security Policy and a security.txt file. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Privacy compliance is basic; while a privacy policy is present, there is no cookie consent mechanism or detailed GDPR compliance information, which could be improved. Contact information including phone and physical address is clearly provided, enhancing business credibility. Overall, the website demonstrates a strong security posture and professional business credibility, though improvements in privacy compliance and security policy transparency are recommended. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust verification, but the website content and structure strongly support legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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. 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. 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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

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

Keep watching crfb.org

This scan found 25 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
52
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
53

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 organization occupies a significant niche in the government and non-profit sectors, focusing on fiscal responsibility and budgetary education. Its nonpartisan stance and comprehensive content position it as a trusted resource for policymakers and the public. The business model is centered on education and advocacy, supported by projects and interactive tools that engage users. The presence of multiple external partner sites and active social media channels indicates a well-developed partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators include frequent content updates and diverse project initiatives. The organization maintains a medium size with a professional online presence, though no parent or subsidiary companies were identified.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and standard security headers present. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were found. However, the lack of a security.txt file and incident response information suggests room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is basic, with no cookie consent mechanism detected, which may pose compliance risks under GDPR or similar regulations. The use of third-party analytics is standard but should be accompanied by clear user consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture appears adequate but could benefit from enhanced policies and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Publish a detailed privacy policy including GDPR compliance statements and data retention policies.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  4. Enhance security headers by adding Content Security Policy (CSP) and other relevant headers.
  5. Publish incident response and security policies to demonstrate preparedness and build trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Description
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact.
Key services
Fiscal policy education, Research and analysis, Interactive tools and projects, Public reports and blogs
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Analytics with async loading

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, limiting domain registration insights.
  3. Website uses modern CMS (Drupal 10) and standard analytics tools.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected, which may affect GDPR compliance.
  5. Contact information is clearly provided including phone and physical address.
  6. Social media presence is active on major platforms.
  7. Content is focused on fiscal policy education and nonpartisan research.
  8. No security.txt or incident response information found.
  9. No signs of vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data in HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, ensuring a solid technical foundation. It uses asynchronous loading for analytics scripts, improving page load performance. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. No broken elements or errors were detected in the HTML content. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in resource loading and caching. The technical stack is appropriate for the organization's needs, with opportunities to enhance security configurations and privacy compliance.
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 crfb.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 crfb.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.