Skip to main content

Security report for first.org

Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, Inc. · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

FIRST (Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams) is a globally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to improving cybersecurity incident response through collaboration, training, and standards development. It serves a diverse membership of incident response teams from government, commercial, and educational sectors worldwide. The organization provides key services including incident coordination, special interest groups, training programs, and widely adopted cybersecurity standards such as CVSS and TLP. FIRST maintains a strong market position as a leader in the incident response community with over 800 members globally. Technically, the website demonstrates a mature digital presence with modern HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript technologies, including integration of a Freshworks support widget. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and provides comprehensive content with good SEO and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with no critical technical issues detected. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and follows good security practices, although explicit security headers are not visible in the provided data. The organization publishes detailed policies including privacy, terms of service, and vulnerability disclosure, reflecting a strong compliance posture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is justified for this type of organization. Overall, FIRST presents a low-risk profile with a professional and trustworthy online presence. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing explicit cookie consent, publishing a security.txt file, and improving incident response contact visibility to further strengthen security posture 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

3 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 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

  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 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 first.org

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
72
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
80

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

FIRST operates as a membership-based non-profit organization focused on cybersecurity incident response. Its competitive advantage lies in its global network of trusted incident response teams and its role as a standards body for cybersecurity practices. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, event sponsorships, and training services. The target customer segments are incident response teams across government, commercial, and educational sectors worldwide. Growth indicators include active event scheduling through 2026 and expanding special interest groups. The partnership ecosystem includes global organizations and technical communities. Operationally, FIRST demonstrates strong governance with detailed policies and committees, supporting its market leadership and community trust.

Security posture

FIRST exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive policy documentation, and active community engagement in security standards and best practices. The absence of visible security headers suggests room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were found in the website content. Compliance with GDPR is indicated by a comprehensive privacy policy. Incident response readiness is implied by the organization's mission and community focus, though direct incident contact channels are not prominently displayed. The security culture is strong, supported by published standards, training, and a global trusted network. Overall, the security posture is robust but could benefit from enhanced header policies and incident contact transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Add a clear cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user transparency.
  3. Publish a security.txt file at the root domain to facilitate vulnerability reporting and incident response communication.
  4. Enhance visibility and accessibility of incident response contact information, including dedicated security and abuse email addresses.
  5. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and widgets to ensure they do not introduce security or privacy risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, Inc.
Description
FIRST is the global Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, a premier organization and recognized global leader in incident response. It brings together computer security incident response teams from government, commercial, and educational organizations to foster cooperation, coordination, and information sharing.
Key services
Incident response coordination, Training and workshops, Special Interest Groups (SIGs), Standards and frameworks (e.g., CVSS, TLP), Events and conferences, Membership services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Freshworks Widget
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security policies and standards

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Freshworks Widget
Transparency
basic

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 no blocking detected.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy or query failure.
  3. Strong focus on incident response community and cybersecurity standards.
  4. Comprehensive policy documentation and active community engagement.
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  6. Use of third-party widget for support but no intrusive tracking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with integration of a Freshworks support widget for user assistance. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, with no critical issues detected. There is no evidence of a CMS or specific hosting provider from the data provided. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable online presence suitable for a global non-profit organization. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and implement enhanced privacy controls to reduce technical risk.
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. 84/100 +1Low16 findingsView report
  2. 83/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with first.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 first.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.