Skip to main content

Security report for freiheitsrechte.org

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. · Non-profit · Germany

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. (GFF) is a German non-profit organization dedicated to defending fundamental and human rights through legal means. Established in 2015, it has built a reputable position in the human rights advocacy sector, focusing on strategic litigation, public education, and policy influence. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting activists, legal professionals, and supporters of civil liberties. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies with good mobile optimization and accessibility, though some security enhancements like DNSSEC and security headers could be improved. The security posture is solid with HTTPS and domain transfer protections, but lacks explicit incident response or security policy disclosures. Overall, the site is trustworthy, transparent, and well-aligned with its mission.

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. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 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

  3. 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 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

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

Keep watching freiheitsrechte.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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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 freiheitsrechte.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for freiheitsrechte.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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

GFF operates primarily as a non-profit legal advocacy group, leveraging strategic court cases to protect and advance civil rights in Germany. Its revenue streams are mainly from donations and memberships, facilitated by integrated payment widgets. The organization maintains a strong digital presence with multiple social media channels and related projects such as podcasts and user rights centers. The market positioning is niche but influential within the human rights and legal advocacy community. The absence of privacy protection in WHOIS and consistent domain registration data support legitimacy. The organization’s transparency and public engagement through press releases and events further enhance credibility.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections, indicating good baseline security. However, the lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options represent areas for improvement. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, which could be a gap in transparency and readiness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The donation form uses a reputable third-party service, reducing direct payment security risks. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit but could be enhanced to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan to increase transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website against common web attacks.
  4. Consider integrating a cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance and user privacy control.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are included.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V.
Description
Die Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) verteidigt Grund- und Menschenrechte mit rechtlichen Mitteln vor Gericht. Sie engagiert sich für die Durchsetzung und Stärkung von Grundrechten in Deutschland, insbesondere in Bereichen wie Demokratie, digitale Freiheit und soziale Teilhabe.
Key services
Strategische Klagen vor Gericht, Rechtsgutachten, Aufklärung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Podcast und Bildungsangebote
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML5, SVG icons, Twingle (payment/donation widget)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is comprehensive and focused on human rights legal advocacy.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  4. Social media presence is diverse and consistent with organization’s mission.
  5. Donation integration uses a reputable third-party payment widget.
  6. No privacy or security disclaimers explicitly found beyond GDPR privacy policy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with JavaScript, CSS, and SVG icons, and integrates third-party donation widgets (Twingle). The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting appears stable with INWX as registrar, though no explicit CMS was detected. Performance is moderate, likely due to image sizes and external scripts. The site structure is clear with well-organized navigation and content sections. There is room for technical improvements in security headers and DNS configuration. Overall, the technical implementation supports the organization's mission effectively.
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 freiheitsrechte.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 freiheitsrechte.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.