Skip to main content

Security report for futurebudget.org

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget · Government · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget operates the website futurebudget.org, which provides interactive tools and quizzes aimed at educating the public about federal government spending, taxes, national debt, and deficits. The site targets a general audience interested in fiscal policy and government budgeting. The business model is educational and advocacy-focused, typical of a non-profit organization. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and clear navigation, supporting good user engagement. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10 CMS and integrates Google Tag Manager and Google reCAPTCHA for analytics and form security. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. However, some security best practices such as security headers are missing, and there is no explicit cookie consent mechanism, which could be improved for better privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and includes reCAPTCHA to protect forms, but lacks published security policies or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed request, but the domain appears privacy protected, which is common and justified for non-profit organizations. The overall security posture is moderate with room for improvement. Overall, the website is a credible and professional resource for federal budget education with moderate technical maturity and security posture. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and contact transparency would enhance trust and compliance.

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. 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

  2. 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 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';…

  3. 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 futurebudget.org

This scan found 25 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
62
Security headers
40
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
55

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

The organization positions itself as a niche non-profit focused on educating the public about the federal budget through interactive online tools. Its competitive advantage lies in engaging users with quizzes and interactive content that simplify complex fiscal topics. The business model relies on educational outreach rather than commercial revenue streams. The target customers are citizens, policymakers, and educators interested in fiscal responsibility. Growth indicators include active social media presence and integration with related CRFB resources. Partnerships with organizations like Cyberwoven for interactive development indicate a collaborative ecosystem. The website's operations reflect a focused mission with consistent branding and content quality.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and Google reCAPTCHA is used to protect forms, indicating awareness of basic security needs. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, which limits transparency and preparedness. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. The lack of contact information further reduces trust and incident response readiness. Overall, the security culture appears basic but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
  4. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance contact information availability on the website to improve user trust and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Description
Provides interactive tools and quizzes to educate and engage the public on federal government spending, taxes, national debt, and deficits.
Key services
Interactive quizzes on federal budget topics, Educational content on government spending and debt, Sharing and social engagement tools
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google reCAPTCHA for forms

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Constant Contact
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website uses Drupal 10 CMS with modern front-end practices.
  2. Content is focused on federal budget education and interactive quizzes.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on the homepage.
  4. Social media links are present and point to official organization accounts.
  5. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  7. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed request; domain appears privacy protected.
  8. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms; site fully accessible.
  9. No adult or NSFW content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform, leveraging Google Tag Manager for analytics and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The front-end uses well-structured HTML with meta tags supporting SEO and social sharing (Open Graph and Twitter cards). The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good navigation clarity. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by external scripts and interactive content. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries. Technical risks include missing security headers and lack of explicit privacy consent mechanisms, which could impact 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with futurebudget.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 futurebudget.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.