Skip to main content

Security report for crrecommendedmark.org

Consumer Reports · Non-profit · United States

Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Consumer Reports is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to providing independent product testing, research, and recommendations to consumers. With a strong market position and a trusted brand, the organization serves a broad audience seeking reliable consumer advice. The website reflects this professionalism with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and consistent branding. Technically, the site employs modern technologies including jQuery, Bootstrap, and Brightcove video platform, hosted on a performant CDN infrastructure, ensuring fast load times and good mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, comprehensive security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is robust, featuring clear privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital presence aligned with the organization's mission and audience needs.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of crrecommendedmark.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 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

5 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  4. 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 crrecommendedmark.org

This scan found 14 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
82
Security headers
70
Email security
67
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
70
Average
79

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

Consumer Reports operates as a non-profit entity focused on consumer advocacy through rigorous product testing and research. Its revenue streams likely include memberships, subscriptions, and donations. The organization targets consumers who value unbiased product information to make informed purchasing decisions. The website's integration with multiple social media platforms and use of advanced marketing tools like Monetate indicate a sophisticated approach to audience engagement and retention. The absence of suspicious domains and the presence of trust indicators such as the CR Recommended badge reinforce its credibility. The business model emphasizes transparency, independence, and consumer empowerment.

Security posture

The website exhibits a high level of security maturity, employing HTTPS with strong SSL configurations and multiple security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The use of secure video players and controlled third-party scripts further enhances security. However, the absence of a publicly visible vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file suggests an area for improvement in transparency and incident response readiness. Overall, the security posture is strong and appropriate for a large non-profit organization handling user data and memberships.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a formal vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and encourage responsible reporting.
  2. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  3. Enhance incident response documentation and make contact channels for security issues more visible.
  4. Continue monitoring and updating security headers and SSL configurations to maintain best practices.
  5. Consider publishing data retention policies to further strengthen privacy compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Consumer Reports
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Consumer Reports
Description
CR Recommended delivers the independent research, testing, and recommendations Consumer Reports has always provided for the past 80 years.
Key services
Product testing, Consumer reports, Recommendations, Research
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Brightcove Video Player, Google Tag Manager, Monetate, VideoJS
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Brightcove Video Platform
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure video player integration

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Monetate
Tracking pixels
Monetate
Marketing tools
Monetate
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 no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented with strong branding and clear messaging.
  3. Use of modern web technologies and video integration.
  4. Strong privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  5. No exposed sensitive data or obvious security vulnerabilities.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed response, but this is common for privacy-protected domains.
  7. Social media presence is consistent with brand identity.
  8. No suspicious or malicious external domains detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and Brightcove for video content delivery. It uses Adobe Experience Manager as the CMS, inferred from design paths. The site is hosted on a CDN infrastructure ensuring fast performance and global availability. Mobile optimization and accessibility features are well implemented, providing a seamless user experience across devices. SEO practices are evident with proper meta tags, Open Graph data, and structured JSON-LD schema markup. The technical implementation supports the organization's goals effectively, though continuous modernization and security monitoring are advised to mitigate emerging risks.
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. 76/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with crrecommendedmark.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 crrecommendedmark.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.