Skip to main content

Security report for first.org

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

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

FIRST (Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, Inc.) is a globally recognized organization dedicated to improving incident response capabilities across government, commercial, and educational sectors. It operates as a membership-based entity providing coordination, training, standards, and community forums to enhance cybersecurity incident handling worldwide. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and strong branding aligned with its mission. However, the technical infrastructure shows critical gaps in SSL/TLS implementation, with no valid certificate detected and no HTTPS support, which significantly impacts security posture and user trust. Security headers and policies are well implemented, but the lack of HTTPS is a major vulnerability. Privacy compliance is supported by a comprehensive privacy policy and strict DMARC enforcement, though no cookie consent mechanism is present. Overall, FIRST demonstrates strong business credibility and community trust but must urgently address its SSL/TLS configuration to maintain its leadership position and protect its users.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of first.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

2 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

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

Keep watching first.org

This scan found 14 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
97
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
83

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 holds a strong market position as a premier global forum for incident response teams, leveraging a membership model that spans multiple continents and sectors. Its competitive advantage lies in its extensive network, comprehensive policies, and specialized interest groups (SIGs) that foster collaboration and knowledge sharing. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, training programs, conferences, and partnerships. The organization targets security professionals and teams requiring coordinated incident response capabilities. Its partnership ecosystem includes specialized initiatives such as the Cold Incident Response collaboration. The website's content and structure support its strategic goals, though the absence of direct contact emails and phone numbers suggests a controlled communication approach. The DNS and email security configurations indicate a mature operational security stance, but the missing DNSSEC and misconfigured CAA records highlight areas for improvement.

Security posture

The security posture of FIRST.org is mixed. The presence of multiple strong security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, etc.) and strict DMARC policies indicate a well-considered approach to web and email security. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support represent critical vulnerabilities that expose users to interception and undermine trust. The site does not support modern TLS protocols, OCSP stapling, or session resumption, which further degrade security and performance. No evidence of security.txt or explicit incident response contact emails was found, which could limit rapid vulnerability reporting. Overall, while organizational security policies appear robust, technical implementation gaps pose significant risks that should be prioritized for remediation.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate immediately to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and configure modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve security and performance.
  3. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Correct DNS CAA records and consider enabling DNSSEC to strengthen domain security.
  5. Publish a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact channels to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on infrastructure likely provided by Fastly, using nginx and Varnish caching for performance optimization. The front-end uses standard HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript with nonce-based script loading for CSP compliance. The site lacks a recognized CMS, suggesting a custom or bespoke platform. Performance metrics were not available, but caching headers and CDN usage imply moderate to good performance. Mobile optimization appears good based on viewport meta tags and responsive design elements. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags including Open Graph and Twitter cards. Accessibility is basic but present. The critical technical risk is the invalid SSL configuration, which undermines the otherwise solid technical foundation.
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. 80/100 −4Low19 findingsView report
  2. 84/100Low16 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.