Skip to main content

Security report for eff.org

Electronic Frontier Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a well-established nonprofit organization dedicated to defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. With over 35 years of advocacy, EFF operates primarily in the technology and digital rights sector, providing legal support, educational resources, and tools to empower users and activists. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and consistent branding, targeting technology users and privacy-conscious individuals globally. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 7 with modern JavaScript libraries and follows good practices in mobile optimization and accessibility. While performance is moderate, the site is well-structured and SEO optimized. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and secure forms, though the absence of explicit security headers and vulnerability disclosure policies suggests room for improvement. The WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain registration trust analysis. However, external trust signals such as a 4-star Charity Navigator rating, active social media presence, and transparent donation mechanisms support the legitimacy of the organization. Privacy compliance is good with a comprehensive privacy policy, though the lack of a cookie consent banner is a minor gap. Overall, EFF's website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and commitment to digital rights advocacy, with recommendations to enhance security headers, publish incident response policies, and improve cookie consent mechanisms to further strengthen user trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

4 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

    • 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

  3. 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 eff.org

This scan found 19 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. See sample alerts.

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
62
Security headers
65
Email security
90
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
75

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

EFF holds a leading position in the digital rights nonprofit sector, leveraging a membership and donation-based business model. Its competitive advantage lies in its long-standing reputation, legal expertise, and comprehensive educational resources. Revenue streams include memberships, donations, sponsorships, and merchandise sales through its shop. The target customer segments are technology users, activists, and privacy advocates worldwide. Growth indicators include active content updates, social media engagement, and partnerships with other advocacy groups. The organization maintains a transparent and professional online presence, supporting its strategic goals of expanding digital rights awareness and influence.

Security posture

EFF's security maturity is moderate to high, with HTTPS enforced and secure form handling via Drupal's standard protections. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. There is no publicly visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure policy, which could impact incident handling readiness. GDPR compliance is indicated by the privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. Overall, EFF demonstrates a solid security culture but should enhance transparency and technical controls to meet best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  2. Add and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen browser security.
  3. Deploy a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Publish explicit security and incident response policies accessible to users and stakeholders.
  5. Regularly review and update WHOIS registration data to ensure domain registration transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Description
The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation for 35 years and counting.
Key services
Digital privacy advocacy, Free speech protection, Legal cases and policy work, Educational resources and tools
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 7, jQuery, GNU GPL licensed JavaScript
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens (Drupal standard)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
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 focus on digital rights, privacy, and free speech advocacy
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed
  5. WHOIS data is missing or blocked, limiting domain registration trust analysis
  6. Good use of social media and external trust signals
  7. No cookie consent banner detected despite privacy policy presence
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by Drupal 7 CMS, utilizing jQuery and custom JavaScript under GNU GPL license. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely due to Drupal 7's legacy architecture. SEO is well implemented with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. No modern hosting provider or CDN information was detected. The technical stack is stable but could benefit from modernization to improve speed and security. No critical technical debt or risks were identified that would impact business operations imminently.
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. 79/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with eff.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 eff.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.