Skip to main content

Security report for gatesfoundation.org

Gates Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Gates Foundation website represents a globally recognized philanthropic organization dedicated to fighting poverty, disease, and inequity worldwide. The site targets a broad audience including donors, partners, and stakeholders in global health and development. It offers comprehensive information about its initiatives and programs, reflecting its position as a leading non-profit entity. The website's content is professionally presented with clear navigation and consistent branding, reinforcing its credibility and trustworthiness. From a technical perspective, the site employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection, and OneTrust for cookie consent management, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices and demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers present. The use of reCAPTCHA and cookie consent mechanisms further enhance security and privacy compliance. However, the absence of a publicly available security policy or incident response information is a gap that could be addressed to improve transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Overall, the website is a secure, professional, and privacy-conscious platform that effectively supports the Gates Foundation's mission. The lack of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis, but the site's content and branding strongly support its legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include publishing explicit security policies, adding vulnerability disclosure information, and maintaining regular audits of third-party scripts to sustain security and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

3 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. 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 gatesfoundation.org

This scan found 15 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
75
Security headers
45
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
80

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 Gates Foundation holds a dominant position in the philanthropic sector, leveraging significant resources to address global challenges in health, poverty, and education. Its business model is centered on grant-making and partnerships rather than commercial revenue. The foundation targets a diverse set of stakeholders including governments, NGOs, and the general public. The website reflects a high level of professionalism and strategic communication, supporting donor engagement and transparency. The presence of official social media channels and structured data enhances its digital footprint and outreach. While no direct revenue streams are evident, the foundation's influence and partnerships are critical to its operational success.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and bot mitigation via Google reCAPTCHA. Privacy compliance is robust, supported by OneTrust cookie consent and GDPR-aligned policies. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were identified in the HTML content. However, the absence of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and preparedness communication. The site would benefit from adding a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting. Overall, the security measures align well with industry best practices for a non-profit organization of this scale.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan on the website to enhance transparency.
  2. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible security reporting.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance security headers by adding Feature-Policy or Permissions-Policy headers for finer control.
  5. Maintain and update privacy and cookie policies to reflect evolving regulations and best practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Gates Foundation
Description
We are a nonprofit fighting poverty, disease, and inequity around the world
Key services
Global health initiatives, Poverty alleviation, Education programs, Equity and inclusion efforts
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA, OneTrust Cookie Consent, New Relic monitoring
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for bot protection
  • Cookie consent banner for privacy compliance
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Strong privacy and cookie compliance with OneTrust integration.
  3. Use of modern analytics and monitoring tools.
  4. Clear and consistent branding aligned with Gates Foundation identity.
  5. No security policy or incident response information publicly available.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain registration trust analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based front end with integrations including Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing, Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection, and OneTrust for cookie consent management. The presence of New Relic monitoring scripts indicates active performance and error tracking. The site is optimized for mobile devices with responsive design and preloaded fonts for performance. Accessibility features appear to be implemented adequately. No CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly detected. Performance is moderate, suggesting potential for further optimization. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a secure, user-friendly, and compliant web presence.
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. 75/100Medium22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gatesfoundation.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 gatesfoundation.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.