Skip to main content

Security report for fsf.org

Free Software Foundation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a well-established nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting software freedom worldwide. With a mature domain age of 34 years and a clear organizational identity, FSF serves a global audience of free software users, developers, and advocates. Their website offers comprehensive resources, campaigns, and community engagement opportunities, positioning them as a leader in the free software movement. Technically, the site is built on the Plone CMS platform with Python and related open-source technologies, delivering a moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern security headers represent critical security weaknesses that expose users to risks. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the site demonstrates strong business credibility and content quality but requires urgent security improvements to protect visitors and maintain trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of fsf.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

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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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

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

Keep watching fsf.org

This scan found 21 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
61

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

FSF operates as a nonprofit advocacy organization with a focus on software freedom, licensing, and community support. Their market position is strong within the free software ecosystem, supported by multiple campaigns and initiatives such as Defective by Design and the Free Software Directory. Revenue streams likely include memberships, donations, and fundraising events. The organization targets a global audience interested in free software ethics and practical adoption. Partnerships with related domains and projects enhance their ecosystem. The website content and structure reflect a professional and consistent brand image, supporting their mission and outreach efforts effectively.

Security posture

The current security posture of the FSF website is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of HTTPS, which is a critical vulnerability in today's web environment. No security headers such as HSTS or Content-Security-Policy are configured, and no advanced TLS protocols are enabled. While no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, these gaps expose users to potential interception and downgrade attacks. The use of Matomo analytics indicates a privacy-conscious approach, but the lack of cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR compliance signals compliance gaps. Incident response and security policies are not publicly documented, limiting transparency. Immediate remediation of SSL and security headers is essential to improve trust and security.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Configure HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Implement a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  4. Publish clear security and incident response policies, including contact channels for reporting vulnerabilities.
  5. Regularly audit and update server and application security configurations to maintain best practices.
Technical notes

Notes

The FSF website is powered by the Plone CMS built on Python and Zope, leveraging YUI JavaScript libraries and CiviCRM for membership management. The site uses a responsive design with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 6 seconds and 47 resources loaded. DNS configuration is stable with no DNSSEC enabled but no subdomain takeover risk. The site lacks modern TLS support and valid SSL certificates, which is a significant technical debt. Analytics are handled via Matomo, reflecting a privacy-aware approach. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires modernization and security hardening to reduce risks and improve user experience.
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. 68/100 −1Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 69/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fsf.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 fsf.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.