Skip to main content

Security report for fundacaovale.org

Fundação Vale · Non-profit

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website's overall security posture shows strengths in SSL/TLS configuration and network security, both scoring a full 100/100, indicating strong encryption and robust network defenses. However, significant gaps exist in email security, with a critical issue due to the lack of any email authentication mechanisms, exposing the business to phishing, spoofing, and potential email-based attacks. Medium-level issues in security headers, GDPR, and NIS2 compliance suggest incomplete implementation of best practices and regulatory requirements, which could lead to data privacy risks and non-compliance penalties. The DNS health score is moderate at 85/100, mainly impacted by the absence of DNSSEC and CAA records, which increases vulnerability to DNS spoofing and certificate mis-issuance. Addressing these issues is crucial for protecting brand reputation, ensuring regulatory compliance, and safeguarding customer data. Immediate improvements in email authentication and security headers will mitigate high-risk attack vectors. Overall, while foundational security controls are well implemented, critical attention is required on email and regulatory compliance areas to strengthen the security posture and reduce potential business risks.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

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

Keep watching fundacaovale.org

This scan found 6 issues across 3 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
100
Email security
55
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
85
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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.

Technical notes

Notes

The most critical finding is the complete lack of email authentication mechanisms (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), resulting in a critical risk for email fraud and phishing, which can severely impact business communications and reputation. Medium issues include failure to implement key HTTP security headers, which leaves the website vulnerable to clickjacking, XSS, and other client-side attacks. The absence of DNSSEC makes DNS queries susceptible to spoofing, undermining domain authenticity. GDPR and NIS2 analysis failures indicate potential gaps in data protection policies and network security governance, increasing regulatory risk. Despite strong SSL/TLS and network security configurations, these critical gaps, particularly in email and regulatory compliance, must be addressed promptly to reduce attack surface and ensure legal compliance.
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 fundacaovale.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 fundacaovale.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.