Skip to main content

Security report for fnh.org

Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme · Non-profit · France

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme is a well-established French non-profit foundation recognized as a public utility, dedicated to environmental awareness and ecological action. The organization operates multiple programs focused on biodiversity preservation, sustainable agriculture, responsible food consumption, and decarbonized mobility. Their digital presence is professional and content-rich, targeting a broad audience interested in ecological and social sustainability. The website supports donations with clear tax deduction information and multiple giving options, reflecting a mature fundraising model. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript frameworks such as Alpine.js and HTMX, and integrates advanced analytics tools including Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, and Matomo. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with a good performance profile. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and consent management implemented, though some security headers could be explicitly verified and enhanced. No WHOIS details are available due to privacy protection, which is common and justified for non-profit entities. The website shows no signs of blocking or WAF challenges, allowing full content access. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but explicit contact emails and phone numbers are not publicly listed, relying instead on contact forms and social media channels. Overall, the foundation demonstrates a strong security and compliance posture appropriate for its sector, with a trustworthy and professional online presence. Strategic improvements could focus on enhancing security header implementation and incident response visibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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. 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 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 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

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

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

Keep watching fnh.org

This scan found 15 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
85
Security headers
70
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
81

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 foundation holds a strong market position as a recognized public utility in France with over three decades of activity. Its business model centers on environmental advocacy and education, supported by donations and partnerships. The organization leverages a network of volunteers and engaged citizens, with multiple thematic programs addressing biodiversity, sustainable food systems, and ecological mobility. The foundation maintains a diversified digital ecosystem with partner sites and active social media engagement, enhancing outreach and fundraising capabilities. Growth indicators include active campaigns and a robust volunteer base. The absence of direct contact emails suggests a controlled communication strategy, possibly to reduce spam and maintain privacy.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and use of modern consent frameworks for cookie management, indicating GDPR awareness. Analytics and advertising scripts are managed with asynchronous loading to reduce performance impact. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options were not clearly identified and should be confirmed. Incident response and security contact information are not publicly visible, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. Overall, the site balances usability and security effectively for a non-profit organization.

Recommendations

  1. Explicitly implement and verify security headers including X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate clickjacking and MIME sniffing risks.
  2. Publish clear incident response and security contact information to improve transparency and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced via dependencies.
  4. Enhance form security by confirming CSRF protections and input validations are in place.
  5. Maintain up-to-date CMS and plugin versions to reduce exposure to known vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme
Description
La Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme est une fondation française reconnue d’utilité publique dont l’objet est d’assurer une sensibilisation à l’environnement.
Key services
Environmental awareness campaigns, Ecological action programs, Donations and fundraising, Educational initiatives
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery 3.6.3, Alpine.js, HTMX, Swiper.js, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Bing Ads, Matomo Analytics
Frameworks
Alpine.js
Platforms
WordPress CMS
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 consent framework scripts for cookie management

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Microsoft Clarity, Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Matomo Analytics
Marketing tools
Consent Framework (choices.consentframework.com)
Transparency
good

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. Strong focus on environmental and ecological non-profit activities.
  3. Multiple donation options with clear tax deduction information.
  4. Good use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection.
  7. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in HTML; contact via forms only.
  8. Social media presence is strong with Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Bluesky links.
  9. No explicit security or incident response contact information found.
  10. No terms of service page clearly identified.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a modern front-end stack including jQuery 3.6.3, Alpine.js, HTMX, and Swiper.js for interactive UI components. It uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing tag management, Microsoft Clarity for user behavior insights, and Matomo for privacy-focused analytics. Fonts are loaded from Google Fonts with preconnect optimizations. The site is mobile responsive and uses lazy loading for images to improve performance. Consent management is handled via a third-party consent framework. The overall technical infrastructure is modern and well-implemented, though hosting provider details were not discernible from the content. Performance is moderate with good SEO and accessibility practices observed.
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 fnh.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 fnh.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.