Skip to main content

Security report for famsafoundation.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.famsafoundation.org appears to be a small or new foundation site built on the Wix platform. The content is minimal and primarily in French, with no visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies. There is no contact information or business details provided, which limits the ability to assess the organization's legitimacy or operational scope. Technically, the site uses standard Wix scripts and polyfills but lacks advanced SEO, accessibility, and security features. The WHOIS data is inaccessible due to a malformed request or blocking, which raises concerns about domain transparency and trustworthiness. Overall, the site shows low digital maturity and limited security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

5 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 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 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 famsafoundation.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. 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
68

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

Due to the lack of business information, contact details, and WHOIS data, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning, business model, or partnerships of the foundation. The site targets a French-speaking audience but does not provide clear services or programs. The absence of analytics and marketing tools suggests limited online engagement or growth strategies. The foundation likely operates on a small scale with minimal digital presence.

Security posture

The security posture is weak given the absence of HTTPS verification details, missing security headers, and no visible incident response or security policies. The WHOIS data is blocked or unavailable, which reduces transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but the lack of security best practices and policies is a concern. The site would benefit from implementing standard security headers, SSL/TLS verification, and publishing privacy and incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and verify configuration
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  3. Add clear contact information including business address and phone numbers
  4. Include security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options
  5. Improve SEO, accessibility, and content quality to enhance trust and usability
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. WHOIS query returned 'Malformed request.' and website content is minimal with no WHOIS data, indicating possible blocking or access restrictions. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, Core-js, Focus-within-polyfill, Intl.Segmenter Polyfill
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is inaccessible or blocked, limiting domain trust analysis
  2. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and polyfills
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact information or business details are present
  5. No security headers or SSL configuration details available
  6. Minimal content and poor SEO and accessibility
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected
  8. Website content is safe and non-adult
  9. Likely a small or new website with limited digital maturity
  10. WAF or access restrictions detected impacting analysis completeness
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Wix and uses Wix's standard JavaScript libraries and polyfills. The site loads multiple scripts from parastorage.com and unpkg.com for polyfills and performance. The HTML is valid but minimal, with limited meta tags and no structured data or Open Graph tags detected. Mobile optimization is basic, and accessibility features are minimal. No analytics or advertising scripts were found, indicating limited tracking or marketing infrastructure. Performance is moderate but could be improved with better optimization and content enrichment.
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 famsafoundation.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 famsafoundation.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.