Skip to main content

Security report for cummingsfoundation.org

Cummings Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Cummings Foundation is a well-established non-profit organization focused on awarding substantial grants to nonprofits primarily in eastern Massachusetts. Founded in 1986, it operates with a large asset base funded by commercial real estate managed by Cummings Properties. The foundation supports various programs including local grants, retirement communities, affiliated colleges, and international recovery efforts. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and comprehensive content relevant to its philanthropic mission. Technically, the site uses modern frameworks like Bootstrap and jQuery, integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics, and employs CookieYes and Privy for privacy and marketing compliance. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though it lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. WHOIS data confirms domain legitimacy and consistency with the business. Overall, the site is trustworthy, compliant with privacy regulations, and serves its target audience effectively.

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

6 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

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

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

  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';…

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

Keep watching cummingsfoundation.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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
64

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 foundation holds a strong market position as one of New England's largest philanthropic entities, leveraging commercial real estate profits to fund nonprofit grants and community programs. Its business model is non-profit and community-focused, targeting nonprofits, volunteers, and educational institutions. The organization benefits from a robust partnership ecosystem including Cummings Properties and affiliated retirement communities. Growth indicators include increasing annual grant awards and expanding program reach. The website supports these operations with clear program descriptions, volunteer engagement, and transparent funding information.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent compliance, and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, it lacks advanced security headers (CSP, HSTS) and does not publish a security policy or incident response contacts, which are important for transparency and readiness. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected in the content or WHOIS data. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt is a gap in security culture. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the organization's risk profile but could be improved with additional best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  4. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced and maintain up-to-date versions.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Cummings Properties
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Cummings Foundation
Description
Cummings Foundation is a large non-profit organization awarding at least $50 million annually to nonprofits primarily in eastern Massachusetts. It supports local grants, retirement communities, affiliated colleges, and international recovery efforts in Rwanda. The foundation is funded largely by commercial real estate donated by its founders and managed by Cummings Properties.
Key services
Local grant programs, Retirement communities development, Educational funding and workforce development, International recovery support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, CookieYes (cookie consent management), Privy (marketing widget)
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by Google Tag Manager and external scripts loaded over HTTPS)
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Privy
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented.
  3. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  4. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and business consistency.
  5. No terms of service page found.
  6. Multiple external trusted domains linked, including social media and partner sites.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a solid technical foundation using Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and uses CookieYes and Privy for privacy and marketing compliance. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible with good SEO practices including meta tags and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. There is no clear CMS identified, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Hosting details are not explicit. Opportunities exist to modernize by adopting newer JavaScript frameworks or CMS platforms for easier content management and enhanced performance.
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 cummingsfoundation.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 cummingsfoundation.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.