Skip to main content

Security report for fsf.org

Free Software Foundation, Inc. · Other · United States

Medium risk. 6 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

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a well-established nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting software freedom worldwide. Their website clearly communicates their mission, advocacy campaigns, and community initiatives, positioning them as a leading authority in the free software movement. The organization offers key services including licensing support, community events, and maintenance of the Free Software Directory. Technically, the website is built on the Plone CMS platform using Python and related open source technologies, delivering a responsive and accessible user experience with moderate performance. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enabled and secure form handling, though improvements could be made by adding security headers and publishing a formal security policy. Privacy compliance is good, with a comprehensive privacy policy present, but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis; however, the organization's long history and transparent web presence strongly support legitimacy. Overall, the FSF website is professional, trustworthy, and well-aligned with its nonprofit advocacy 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

6 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
75
Security headers
35
Email security
60
DNS health
85
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

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 in the nonprofit sector focused on technology advocacy, specifically free software. Their market position is strong due to their historical significance and global reach. The business model relies on memberships, donations, and community engagement rather than commercial sales. Their target audience includes software users, developers, activists, and supporters of digital freedom. Partnerships with related campaigns and projects like Defective by Design and the GNU Project enhance their ecosystem. The website content and structure reflect a mature organization with consistent branding and clear communication of values and services.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and secure form submissions. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The minimal use of tracking and privacy-conscious analytics (Matomo) align with the organization's values. The missing cookie consent mechanism is a minor compliance gap given GDPR relevance. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Consider creating and publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Investigate and resolve WHOIS data availability issues to improve domain registration transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Description
The FSF is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. It advocates for free software ideals, promotes free software distributions, drives development of the GNU operating system, and provides resources like the Free Software Directory and licensing tools.
Key services
Free software advocacy and campaigns, Licensing and compliance support, Community events and activism, Free Software Directory maintenance, Membership and fundraising
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Plone, Zope, Python, CiviCRM, HTML5, YUI 3.18.1
Frameworks
Plone
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure form submission via HTTPS

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

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 clear navigation.
  2. No WAF or blocking detected.
  3. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain registration trust analysis.
  4. Strong nonprofit branding and mission clearly presented.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism found despite GDPR relevance.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  7. Use of open source CMS Plone and related technologies.
  8. Minimal tracking via Matomo analytics, privacy conscious.
  9. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a mature open source technology stack centered on Plone CMS, Zope application server, and Python. The front-end includes YUI 3.18.1 and Roboto fonts, with responsive CSS grids for layout. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with clear navigation and semantic HTML. Performance is moderate, likely due to the CMS and content volume. Analytics are handled via Matomo, reflecting privacy-conscious data collection. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected, but adding modern security headers and cookie consent would enhance compliance and security posture.
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. 69/100 +8Medium31 findingsView report
  2. 61/100Medium28 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.