Skip to main content

Security report for geenadavisinstitute.org

Geena Davis Institute · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Geena Davis Institute is a well-established non-profit organization focused on improving gender representation and authenticity in media through research and advocacy. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence, targeting media professionals, researchers, and advocates. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress with Elementor and includes modern SEO and cookie consent mechanisms, indicating a mature digital presence. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enabled and some security cookies in use, though there is room for improvement in DNSSEC and security headers. Privacy compliance is partially met with a cookie consent banner but lacks a visible privacy policy or terms of service. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe for general audiences.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

7 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"

  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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching geenadavisinstitute.org

This scan found 26 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
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

The organization occupies a niche in the media and non-profit sectors, leveraging its founder's reputation to establish market position. Its business model centers on advocacy, research, and resource provision without direct commercial sales. The website supports this with content focused on research, events, and resources. The presence of social media links and Google Analytics indicates engagement and data-driven insights. The lack of direct contact information on the homepage suggests a focus on informational outreach rather than direct sales or support. The domain age and WHOIS data support the legitimacy and longevity of the organization.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS and bot management cookies active. However, the absence of DNSSEC and key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents potential vulnerabilities. No explicit incident response or security policy pages were found, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The cookie consent mechanism is robust, supporting GDPR compliance to some extent. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the source. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could benefit from enhancements in header policies and incident response transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and configure security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a clear privacy policy and terms of service pages accessible from the homepage.
  4. Add a dedicated security policy and vulnerability disclosure page with contact information.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Geena Davis Institute
Description
Driving systemic change through research and advocacy to improve onscreen representation, eliminate bias, and advance authentic storytelling in media.
Key services
Research on media representation, Advocacy for authentic storytelling, Resources and events related to media bias and representation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Yoast SEO, jQuery, Font Awesome, CookieYes (cookie consent), Google Analytics
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner with detailed categories
  • Use of session cookies and security cookies (Cloudflare Bot Management, datadome)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed with clear navigation and good SEO practices.
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed cookie categorization.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in the provided content.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the visible content or metadata.
  5. Social media presence is linked and consistent with the organization’s branding.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected.
  7. HTTPS is enabled and SSL configuration appears good.
  8. No DNSSEC enabled which is a minor security gap.
  9. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML source.
  10. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO plugin, ensuring good SEO and content management capabilities. It loads external libraries such as jQuery and Font Awesome from reputable CDNs. Cookie consent is managed via CookieYes, providing detailed cookie categorization and user control. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for analytics and marketing. The site is hosted with GoDaddy, as indicated by WHOIS data and nameservers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. There is no evidence of technical debt or deprecated technologies, but security header implementation is lacking.
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 geenadavisinstitute.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 geenadavisinstitute.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.