Skip to main content

Security report for documentfreedom.org

Digital Freedom Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Digital Freedom Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting digital freedoms through global events such as Software Freedom Day, Hardware Freedom Day, and Document Freedom Day. Their website serves as a hub for event information, resources, and advocacy for open standards and user control over digital data. The organization targets individuals and groups interested in open source, open standards, and digital rights advocacy worldwide. Technically, the website is built on Joomla CMS with modern frameworks like Bootstrap and uses Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics. The site is mobile-optimized and provides multilingual support, reflecting a mature digital presence. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses domain transfer protection but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, indicating room for improvement in hardening. Privacy compliance is basic, with cookie consent but no detailed privacy or security policies visible. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-aligned with its mission, though it could enhance security and compliance transparency.

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

9 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 documentfreedom.org

This scan found 24 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
35
Email security
90
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
52

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 Digital Freedom Foundation occupies a niche position in the technology non-profit sector, focusing on digital freedom advocacy and event coordination. Its business model revolves around community engagement and awareness rather than commercial revenue. The organization leverages partnerships and social media to amplify its reach. The presence of multiple language versions and international social media accounts suggests a global audience. The foundation's longevity since 2004 adds credibility, though the domain used is relatively new, likely for specific campaigns. The use of donation tools like Ko-fi indicates reliance on community support. The organization maintains a consistent brand and messaging focused on open standards and user empowerment.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection active. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options reduces its defense-in-depth. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, which could hinder transparency and trust in case of security incidents. The use of Matomo analytics aligns with privacy-conscious practices, but cookie consent mechanisms could be more comprehensive. Overall, the site is secure enough for informational purposes but should improve technical security controls and policy disclosures to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement standard security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  4. Enhance privacy compliance by providing a comprehensive privacy policy detailing data collection, usage, and retention.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerable components are in use.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Digital Freedom Foundation
Description
The Digital Freedom Foundation is the organization behind global events like Software Freedom Day, Hardware Freedom Day and Document Freedom Day. It supports people organizing events promoting digital freedoms.
Key services
Organizing global events (Software Freedom Day, Hardware Freedom Day, Document Freedom Day), Providing resources and support for event organizers, Promoting open standards and digital freedoms
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla CMS, Bootstrap 5.3.8, jQuery 3.7.1, Awesomplete, Matomo Analytics
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Marketing tools
Ko-fi floating chat widget
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 challenges.
  2. Content is focused on promoting open standards and digital freedoms.
  3. Multiple language versions available indicating international audience.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (Joomla).
  5. No explicit privacy or security policies beyond cookie consent banner detected.
  6. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly listed on the analyzed page.
  7. Social media presence is strong across multiple platforms.
  8. No visible terms of service or vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  9. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  10. Matomo analytics used, indicating privacy-conscious tracking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery, indicating a mature but somewhat traditional technology stack. The use of Matomo analytics shows a preference for privacy-friendly tools. The site is multilingual and mobile-optimized, improving accessibility and user experience. Hosting is managed via Gandi SAS, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. However, the lack of DNSSEC and security headers suggests some technical debt in security hardening. The site uses external resources like Google Fonts and Ko-fi widgets, which are common but should be monitored for privacy impact. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission but could benefit from modernization in security practices.
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 documentfreedom.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 documentfreedom.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.