Skip to main content

Security report for forgood.org

For Good · Non-profit · United States

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

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

For Good is a well-established 501(c)(3) non-profit organization operating a technology-enabled donor-advised fund platform that facilitates charitable giving for individuals and companies. Founded in 2001 by tech executives from AOL, Yahoo!, and Cisco, it has positioned itself as a leader in digital philanthropic innovation, partnering with major platforms such as YouTube, Walmart, and Patagonia. The website clearly communicates its mission, services, and impact, targeting donors, nonprofits, and corporate partners. The business model centers on enabling donors to support charities efficiently and transparently through a secure online platform. Technically, the website is built on Webflow CMS, leveraging modern web technologies and hosting infrastructure with CDN support. It employs Google Tag Manager and Analytics for tracking and performance monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices and a moderate page load time. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS with TLS 1.3 and 1.2, has valid SPF and DMARC records, and avoids known SSL vulnerabilities. However, it lacks some advanced security features such as HSTS, DNSSEC, OCSP stapling, and Certificate Transparency compliance, which are recommended for enhanced protection. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism was detected, which may impact GDPR compliance. Contact information is clearly provided, including email, phone, and physical address, along with active social media profiles, enhancing business credibility and trustworthiness. Overall, the site demonstrates a strong professional presence with room for security and privacy improvements.

Scanned

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 forgood.org

This scan found 22 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
77
Security headers
60
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
73

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

For Good operates in the non-profit sector with a focus on donor-advised funds, enabling donors and companies to channel funds to charities efficiently. Its market position is strong due to early establishment and partnerships with major platforms like YouTube and Walmart. The business model relies on technology-enabled philanthropy, aggregating small donations for big impact. Revenue streams likely include fees associated with fund management and partnerships. The target customers include individual donors, corporate partners, and nonprofits. Growth indicators include the volume of donations disbursed ($5 billion+) and partnerships with high-profile companies. The partnership ecosystem is robust, involving Google, Walmart, Patagonia, and others, which enhances reach and credibility. Strategic observations highlight the organization's commitment to innovation, accountability, and impact in philanthropy.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and modern TLS protocols supported. SPF and DMARC records are configured to protect email integrity, though DMARC policy is set to 'none', which is less strict. The absence of HSTS, DNSSEC, and OCSP stapling indicates areas for improvement in transport and DNS security. No critical vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or FREAK were detected. The lack of a security.txt file or explicit incident response contact channels suggests limited public-facing security incident management. Privacy compliance is partial, with no cookie consent mechanism detected, which may expose the organization to GDPR compliance risks. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by implementing recommended best practices and improving transparency around incident response.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect DNS queries from spoofing and improve domain security.
  3. Enable OCSP stapling on the web server to improve SSL certificate revocation checking and reduce latency.
  4. Add CAA DNS records to restrict which certificate authorities can issue certificates for the domain.
  5. Deploy a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations, improving user trust and legal compliance.
  6. Publish a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
  7. Review and consider enforcing a stricter DMARC policy (e.g., quarantine or reject) to reduce email spoofing risks.
  8. Improve Certificate Transparency compliance to enhance certificate issuance transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Webflow CMS, leveraging modern front-end technologies and hosted on a CDN-backed infrastructure. It uses Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and performance monitoring. The DNS is managed via AWS Route 53 with multiple authoritative nameservers, but DNSSEC is not enabled. Email services are integrated with Mandrill and Zendesk, with SPF and DMARC configured. SSL/TLS configuration supports TLS 1.3 and 1.2 with no weak or vulnerable cipher suites detected, but lacks HSTS and OCSP stapling. The site loads moderately fast with a page size of approximately 135KB and 30 resources. Accessibility and mobile optimization are good, with semantic HTML and responsive design. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid with opportunities for security hardening and privacy enhancements.
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 forgood.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 forgood.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.