Skip to main content

Security report for eclipse.foundation

Eclipse Foundation AISBL · Technology · Belgium

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Eclipse Foundation AISBL is a well-established international non-profit organization based in Brussels, Belgium, dedicated to fostering open source software collaboration and innovation. It supports a large global community with over 410 open source projects and more than 360 members worldwide. The foundation provides a vendor-neutral environment that promotes industry-ready open source innovation across multiple technology sectors including cloud, automotive, IoT, and AI. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and strong branding consistency. Technically, the website is built using modern technologies such as the Hugo static site generator, Google Tag Manager for analytics, and FontAwesome for icons. It demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility. SEO best practices are followed with proper meta tags and structured navigation. The site uses HTTPS exclusively, ensuring secure communications. From a security perspective, the site implements cookie consent mechanisms and maintains privacy and legal policies that indicate GDPR compliance. However, explicit security headers are not detected in the HTML content, and no security.txt file is published for vulnerability disclosure. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities are apparent. The WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is appropriate for a non-profit of this scale, though it limits direct verification of domain registration details. Overall, the Eclipse Foundation website presents a trustworthy, professional, and secure platform for its community and stakeholders. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security.txt file, and providing clearer incident response contacts to further strengthen security posture and transparency.

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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 eclipse.foundation

This scan found 17 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
75
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
83

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 Eclipse Foundation holds a strong market position as a leading open source software foundation with a broad and diverse membership base. Its business model centers on providing governance, infrastructure, and ecosystem development for open source projects, enabling industry collaboration and innovation. The foundation's revenue streams likely include membership fees, sponsorships, and professional services related to open source program offices. Target customers include software developers, enterprises adopting open source technologies, and industry consortia. The foundation's partnerships and collaborations span multiple sectors, enhancing its influence and reach. Growth indicators include a large number of active projects and members, as well as ongoing industry collaborations. The foundation's operations emphasize transparency, vendor neutrality, and community-driven development.

Security posture

The Eclipse Foundation website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, reflecting compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. The presence of comprehensive legal and compliance documentation further supports this. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and the lack of a published security.txt file indicate areas for improvement. No direct incident response contacts or security-specific email addresses are provided, which could hinder timely vulnerability reporting and response. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the website content. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and improving transparency around security incident handling.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file at the root of the domain to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contact information.
  3. Add explicit incident response contact channels (e.g., security@eclipse.org) on the website to facilitate security communications.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Enhance user trust by providing more visible trust indicators such as certifications or security badges.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Eclipse Foundation AISBL
Description
The Eclipse Foundation provides a global community of individuals and organisations with a business-friendly environment for open source software collaboration and innovation. It hosts over 410 open source projects including runtimes, tools, specifications, and frameworks for enterprise, cloud, edge, automotive, AI, embedded, IoT, and more. Supported by over 360 members globally, it is an international non-profit association based in Brussels.
Key services
Open source project hosting and governance, IP Management, Ecosystem Development & Marketing, Development Process support, IT Infrastructure
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Hugo (static site generator), Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome, Google Fonts (Roboto), HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with opt-in/opt-out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with POST method

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

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 rich content and navigation.
  2. Strong presence of legal and compliance documentation.
  3. Active social media presence across multiple platforms.
  4. No exposed sensitive data or security issues detected in HTML.
  5. Cookie consent mechanism implemented with opt-in/out.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for large organizations.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main page; contact via form only.
  8. No security.txt file found for vulnerability disclosure.
  9. Website uses modern technologies and good SEO practices.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern static site generator (Hugo) which contributes to fast loading times and reduced server-side complexity. Use of Google Tag Manager enables flexible analytics and marketing integrations. The site employs responsive design techniques and accessibility best practices, ensuring usability across devices and for users with disabilities. The technology stack is lightweight and well-maintained, minimizing technical debt. However, the lack of detected advanced frameworks or CMS platforms suggests limited dynamic content capabilities. Performance is moderate to good, with opportunities to optimize further by leveraging caching and CDN strategies. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the foundation's goals effectively with low risk of technical failures.
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 eclipse.foundation. 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 eclipse.foundation.

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.