Skip to main content

Security report for fightthefakes.org

Fight the Fakes Alliance · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Fight the Fakes Alliance is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to combating substandard and falsified medicines globally. The website serves as an advocacy and awareness platform targeting healthcare professionals, policymakers, NGOs, and the general public. It provides resources, updates, and calls to action to promote medicine quality and safety. The organization has a credible market position supported by a domain registered since 2006 and consistent branding across its digital presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using modern frameworks like Bootstrap and Elementor, with integration of Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA for analytics and security. The site is mobile optimized and performs moderately well, though some accessibility features could be improved. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and reCAPTCHA implemented, but lacks advanced security headers and a published security policy. Privacy compliance is limited due to absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could enhance transparency and security practices.

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

9 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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 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

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

Keep watching fightthefakes.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
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
50

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention fightthefakes.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for fightthefakes.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The Fight the Fakes Alliance operates in the healthcare and non-profit sectors, focusing on advocacy against fake medicines. Its business model revolves around awareness campaigns, resource sharing, and community engagement rather than commercial transactions. The alliance targets a specialized audience including healthcare stakeholders and the public concerned with medicine safety. The domain age and consistent branding indicate a stable presence. The organization leverages social media channels for outreach and maintains a professional website to support its mission. No direct revenue streams or commercial partnerships are evident from the data, consistent with a non-profit structure. The alliance's strategic positioning as a global advocate provides competitive advantage in the niche of medicine quality assurance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and Google reCAPTCHA protecting forms. However, it lacks critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security, which are recommended to mitigate common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, limiting transparency and readiness for security incidents. The absence of DNSSEC reduces DNS security. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no clear GDPR indicators or cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-commercial informational site but should be improved to align with best practices and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen web security.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fight the Fakes Alliance
Description
A global alliance focused on raising awareness and combating substandard and falsified medicines through advocacy, information sharing, and community engagement.
Key services
Awareness campaigns, Information dissemination, Advocacy for medicine quality, Community engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, FontAwesome, Elementor
Frameworks
WordPress, Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA implemented
  • IP anonymization in Google Analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages found in the provided content.
  3. Social media presence is active with official Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn links.
  4. Uses modern web technologies and WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  7. HTTPS is enforced with good SSL configuration.
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Bootstrap framework, indicating a modern and flexible technical infrastructure. It uses jQuery and FontAwesome for UI enhancements and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for user tracking and analytics. The site loads external resources from reputable domains such as fonts.googleapis.com and gstatic.com. Performance is moderate with responsive design supporting mobile devices. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but DNS points to icinternet.ch. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected in the provided content. Opportunities exist to improve security configurations and privacy compliance to reduce technical risks and enhance user trust.
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 fightthefakes.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 fightthefakes.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.