Skip to main content

Security report for drupal.org

Drupal Association · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Drupal.org is the official website for the Drupal content management system, a leading open source CMS platform widely used by developers and organizations globally. The site serves as a hub for software downloads, community collaboration, and support resources. However, the current HTML content is blocked by a PerimeterX Web Application Firewall (WAF), which restricts access and prevents a full content and technical analysis. This blocking indicates a strong security posture against automated threats but limits visibility into the site's full capabilities and policies. Technically, the site uses JavaScript and integrates PerimeterX for security. The presence of Google Fonts indicates some level of design consideration, but the blocked content prevents assessment of performance, accessibility, and SEO optimization. No forms or interactive elements are visible in the blocked content, and no privacy or cookie policies are detectable, which may impact compliance assessments. From a security perspective, the use of PerimeterX WAF is a positive indicator of proactive defense against automated attacks and scraping. However, the absence of visible security headers and policies in the provided content limits the evaluation of the overall security posture. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed query or privacy protection, which is common for large open source projects but reduces transparency slightly. Overall, the site appears legitimate and professionally branded but is currently inaccessible for detailed analysis due to security blocking. Strategic recommendations include improving transparency by providing accessible privacy and cookie policies, enhancing security headers, and ensuring WHOIS data availability or clarity for trust enhancement.

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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching drupal.org

This scan found 21 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
15
Email security
90
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
66

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

Drupal.org operates as a critical platform in the open source technology sector, providing a widely adopted CMS solution. Its business model revolves around community-driven development and support, with revenue likely generated through sponsorships, partnerships, and services related to Drupal. The site targets developers, site builders, and organizations seeking a robust CMS. Drupal's market position as a leading open source CMS is well established, supported by a large global community. The lack of visible contact details beyond an email and absence of physical addresses or phone numbers in the provided content is typical for open source projects that rely on digital communication channels. The partnership with PerimeterX for security indicates a mature approach to protecting the platform from automated threats and abuse.

Security posture

The security posture of Drupal.org is currently strong in terms of defense mechanisms, as evidenced by the deployment of PerimeterX WAF to block suspected automated access. This indicates an active approach to mitigating scraping, bots, and potential attacks. However, the lack of visible security headers and absence of accessible security policies or incident response contacts in the provided content limits the ability to fully assess compliance and readiness. The WHOIS data is not available, which is common for privacy-protected domains but reduces transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the limited content. Overall, the site demonstrates a proactive security stance but could improve transparency and policy availability to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Make privacy and cookie policies easily accessible and clearly linked on the website.
  2. Implement and expose comprehensive security headers (e.g., CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options).
  3. Ensure WHOIS data is complete and accurate or provide justification for privacy protection.
  4. Provide clear incident response and security contact information on the site.
  5. Improve website accessibility and SEO optimization once WAF blocking is resolved.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page shows PerimeterX WAF blocking message with captcha and access denied notice. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
Drupal Association
Description
Drupal.org is the official website for the Drupal content management system, providing resources, community support, and software downloads.
Key services
Open source CMS software, Community forums and support, Project hosting and collaboration
Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, PerimeterX

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of PerimeterX WAF

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
PerimeterX
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by PerimeterX WAF, preventing full content analysis.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to malformed query or privacy protection.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected in the provided HTML.
  4. Contact email help@drupal.org is present in the block message.
  5. No phone numbers, social media links, or physical addresses found in the HTML.
  6. Page is minimal and only shows a security block message.
  7. Use of Google Fonts and PerimeterX scripts detected.
  8. No forms or input fields detected in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The technical infrastructure includes JavaScript and integration with PerimeterX for security. The use of Google Fonts suggests attention to design aesthetics. However, the site content is currently blocked by a WAF, preventing assessment of CMS usage, hosting provider, performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility. No forms or interactive elements are present in the blocked content. The lack of visible meta tags or structured data limits SEO evaluation. The site would benefit from modernization efforts to improve performance and accessibility once the blocking issue is addressed.
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. 66/100Medium30 findingsView report
  2. 66/100 −1Medium30 findingsView report
  3. 67/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with drupal.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 drupal.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.