Skip to main content

Security report for feministleadershiphub.com

Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Feminist Leadership Hub website serves as a platform focused on feminist leadership topics, likely providing resources and community engagement for individuals interested in social justice and leadership from a feminist perspective. The site is built on WordPress and uses standard web technologies such as JavaScript and Google Fonts. While the site is accessible and content is safe for a general audience, it lacks critical business and compliance information such as privacy policies, contact details, and WHOIS registration data. This absence raises concerns about the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the domain. Technically, the site shows moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but lacks advanced security headers and visible security best practices. Overall, the security posture is weak, and privacy compliance is minimal, which could expose the site to risks and reduce user trust.

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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching feministleadershiphub.com

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
75
Security headers
95
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
74

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 website targets a niche audience interested in feminist leadership and social justice, positioning itself as a small-scale non-profit or community resource. There is no clear business model or revenue stream evident from the content. The lack of contact information and business credentials limits the ability to assess market positioning or partnerships. The site appears to be a content hub rather than a commercial enterprise, with no detected certifications or trust signals. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships are not visible, suggesting a limited operational scope.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is low. The site lacks essential security headers and does not display any incident response or security policy information. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files are present. The absence of WHOIS data and domain registration details further complicates trust assessment. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance or data protection officer contact. The site does not appear to use analytics or tracking services, which reduces privacy risks but also limits business intelligence. Overall, the site should prioritize implementing security best practices, improving transparency, and establishing compliance frameworks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Secure the website with proper SSL/TLS configuration and enforce HTTPS site-wide.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Provide clear contact information including business emails and physical addresses to enhance credibility.
  5. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is available and accurate to improve legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a hub focused on feminist leadership topics, likely providing resources, articles, and community engagement related to feminist leadership.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, JavaScript, Google Fonts, Emoji Support Script
Frameworks
WordPress Core
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data unavailable or domain unregistered.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with standard scripts and fonts.
  5. No security headers or advanced security measures detected.
  6. No analytics or tracking services detected.
  7. Content is safe and targeted at a general audience interested in feminist leadership.
  8. Website quality and professionalism are basic with room for improvement.
  9. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with standard JavaScript libraries and Google Fonts integration. The HTML structure is valid but basic, with no advanced SEO or accessibility features detected. Performance is moderate with no evident optimization for speed or caching. Mobile responsiveness is good but could be enhanced with better accessibility features. There is no evidence of modern frameworks beyond WordPress core. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Technical debt appears low but the site lacks advanced technical maturity and security hardening.
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 feministleadershiphub.com. 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 feministleadershiphub.com.

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.