Skip to main content

Security report for flightsafety.org

Flight Safety Foundation · Transportation · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Flight Safety Foundation is a well-established, independent non-profit organization dedicated to advancing aviation safety globally through research, education, advocacy, and publishing. With over 80 years of history, it holds a strong market position as a trusted leader in the aviation safety sector, serving aviation professionals and stakeholders worldwide. The website reflects this professionalism with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and a consistent brand presence supported by partnerships with major aviation and aerospace companies. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using modern plugins and frameworks such as Elementor and Yoast SEO. It leverages Amazon AWS for hosting and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for user tracking and performance monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO practices, although some accessibility features could be improved. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses domain transfer protection, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for enhanced protection. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy, but the absence of a cookie consent mechanism is a gap. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing business credibility. Overall, the website is secure, professional, and trustworthy, with minor improvements recommended in security headers, DNS security, and privacy consent mechanisms to further strengthen its posture.

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

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 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
    • 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching flightsafety.org

This scan found 23 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
42
Security headers
75
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
58

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 flightsafety.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
87
Employees
0
Customers
87
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
13%

4 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for flightsafety.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

Flight Safety Foundation operates as a non-profit entity focused on aviation safety, targeting aviation professionals, regulators, and industry stakeholders. Its business model revolves around providing research, auditing, education, advocacy, and publishing services to improve aviation safety worldwide. The organization benefits from a strong partnership ecosystem including major airlines, aerospace manufacturers, and mining companies, which enhances its influence and resource base. The website's content and structure indicate a mature digital presence with ongoing updates and engagement through social media and events. The foundation's longevity and global reach position it as a key player in the aviation safety domain.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protection enabled. However, the lack of DNSSEC and absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security represent areas for improvement. No signs of vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were found. The site does not publicly disclose incident response or security policies, nor does it provide a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. Privacy compliance is partially met with a privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are missing, which could pose compliance risks under GDPR and similar regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Consider making incident response and security policies publicly available to increase transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Flight Safety Foundation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Flight Safety Foundation
Description
An independent, nonprofit, international organization engaged in research, auditing, education, advocacy and publishing to improve aviation safety
Key services
Research, Auditing, Education, Advocacy, Publishing, Safety standards (e.g., BARS), Safety databases (e.g., Aviation Safety Network)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Flickity, Photoswipe, Select2, Modernizr, GSAP, Packery, jQuery
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure login URLs

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Marketing tools
Swiftype
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Content is focused on aviation safety and non-profit advocacy.
  3. Multiple trusted aviation industry partners are featured.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity detected.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism found despite privacy policy presence.
  6. Security headers are not explicitly detected; DNSSEC not enabled.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  8. Contact information is clearly provided with phone, address, and contact forms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and flexible content management approach. It uses a variety of JavaScript libraries and frameworks such as Flickity for carousels, Photoswipe for image galleries, GSAP for animations, and Select2 for enhanced select boxes. Hosting is inferred to be on Amazon AWS based on DNS servers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Accessibility is basic and could be improved. The site integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, and uses DoubleClick for advertising. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy features.
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 flightsafety.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 flightsafety.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.