Skip to main content

Security report for edf.org

Environmental Defense Fund · Non-profit · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a globally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to addressing critical environmental challenges such as climate change, air pollution, and sustainable development. The organization leverages science, economics, and policy advocacy to deliver impactful solutions. Their website reflects a mature digital presence with a strong focus on user engagement, donations, and educational content. The site is well-branded, professionally designed, and optimized for accessibility and mobile use. Technically, EDF employs a modern Drupal CMS infrastructure, integrates reputable analytics and marketing tools, and maintains strong security practices including HTTPS and security headers. However, explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly detailed, representing an area for improvement. Overall, EDF's website demonstrates high trustworthiness and professionalism consistent with its long-standing reputation in the environmental nonprofit sector.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

2 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

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

Keep watching edf.org

This scan found 16 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
95
Security headers
60
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
81

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

EDF holds a strong market position as a leading environmental nonprofit with over 50 years of history and a large supporter base exceeding 3.5 million members. Their business model centers on advocacy, research, and public engagement to influence policy and corporate behavior. Revenue streams primarily include donations and planned giving, supported by secure online donation platforms. The organization targets a broad audience including activists, policymakers, donors, and the general public. Their partnership ecosystem includes specialized subdomains for donations, impact reporting, and digital publications, enhancing their outreach and engagement capabilities. The website's content strategy and navigation facilitate clear communication of their mission and impact, supporting sustained growth and influence.

Security posture

The website exhibits a strong security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and secure form implementations. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries in the analyzed content. The use of reputable third-party analytics and marketing tools is balanced with privacy compliance measures including cookie consent mechanisms and a comprehensive privacy policy. However, the absence of a publicly accessible security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and may impact stakeholder confidence. Enhancing these areas would strengthen the organization's security culture and readiness. Overall, the site is secure and trustworthy but could benefit from increased security communication.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response information on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Provide direct security contact channels such as a security@ email address.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet or exceed WCAG standards for inclusivity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Environmental Defense Fund
Description
Environmental Defense Fund is a global nonprofit organization tackling climate change and other environmental issues through science, economics, and advocacy.
Key services
Climate change solutions, Methane emissions reduction, Sustainable energy transition, Environmental research and advocacy, Community health support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal CMS, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Typekit Fonts, JavaScript ES6+, Slick Carousel
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure forms with CSRF protection
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern JavaScript libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Lytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
DoubleClick, Bing Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Lytics
Marketing tools
Lytics
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed nonprofit environmental advocacy site.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and regularly updated.
  3. Strong branding and consistent messaging throughout.
  4. Secure HTTPS with modern security headers implemented.
  5. No signs of malware, phishing, or suspicious activity.
  6. Multiple donation and engagement options with secure forms.
  7. Use of reputable third-party analytics and marketing tools.
  8. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in HTML; contact likely via forms.
  9. WHOIS data unavailable due to query failure or privacy protection.
Technical notes

Notes

EDF's website is built on the Drupal CMS platform, utilizing modern web technologies including ES6 JavaScript, Typekit fonts, and responsive design frameworks. The site loads efficiently with optimized images and asynchronous script loading, contributing to fast performance. SEO best practices are observed with proper meta tags, Open Graph data, and structured content. Accessibility considerations are present, including skip links and ARIA attributes, though further improvements are possible. The technical infrastructure supports a robust user experience with clear navigation and multiple engagement points. Hosting details are not explicitly identified but the use of CDN and external services suggests a scalable and reliable environment. Opportunities exist to further modernize by adopting newer front-end frameworks and enhancing security transparency.
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 edf.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 edf.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.