Skip to main content

Security report for giveupgithub.org

Software Freedom Conservancy · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Software Freedom Conservancy is a well-established non-profit organization founded in 2008 that provides legal, advocacy, and infrastructure support to Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. Their website prominently features the 'Give Up GitHub' campaign, urging FOSS developers to move away from proprietary platforms. The organization targets FOSS developers, community leaders, and supporters of software freedom. Their business model is centered on non-profit advocacy and community support, positioning them as a trusted leader in the open source ecosystem. Technically, the website is built with standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS (using Tachyons), and JavaScript. It is hosted via Gandi SAS and uses HTTPS, but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. No major performance issues were detected. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but does not implement DNSSEC or security headers such as CSP or HSTS. There is no published security policy, incident response contact, or vulnerability disclosure program. No tracking or advertising scripts were detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. The WHOIS data is consistent with the organization's identity and domain age, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and focused on advocacy without commercial distractions. Security posture is adequate but could be improved with additional headers and policies. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent. The site is safe for general audiences with no adult or questionable content.

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

7 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 giveupgithub.org

This scan found 28 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
50

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 Software Freedom Conservancy operates as a non-profit entity focused on supporting and defending Free and Open Source Software projects through legal advocacy, copyleft compliance, and community initiatives. Their market position is strong within the open source community, leveraging partnerships with alternative hosting platforms and internship programs like Outreachy. Revenue streams likely include donations and sponsorships, as indicated by donation calls and sustainer programs. The organization targets developers, project leaders, and supporters of software freedom. Their ecosystem includes campaigns like 'Give Up GitHub' and events such as FOSSY, enhancing community engagement and influence. Strategically, the Conservancy emphasizes transparency, legal impact litigation, and fostering alternatives to proprietary platforms. Their partnerships with Forgejo, Codeberg, and SourceHut reflect a commitment to decentralized and open infrastructure. The organization's longevity and clear mission contribute to its credibility and growth potential within the non-profit technology advocacy sector.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of DNSSEC and common security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against certain attack vectors like DNS spoofing, clickjacking, and cross-site scripting. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, indicating limited formalized incident response readiness. The lack of explicit security policies and incident contact channels suggests room for improvement in transparency and security culture. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analyzed content. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit informational site but could be enhanced to align with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism and update privacy policy to reflect GDPR compliance where applicable.
  5. Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Software Freedom Conservancy
Description
The Software Freedom Conservancy provides a non-profit home and services to Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.
Key services
Copyleft Compliance, Impact Litigation, Project Hosting Infrastructure, Outreachy internships, Community Conferences (FOSSY), Advocacy campaigns (e.g., Give Up GitHub)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS (Tachyons), JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a non-profit advocacy platform focused on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and software freedom.
  2. Content is comprehensive about the Give Up GitHub campaign and related advocacy.
  3. No forms detected on the analyzed page; contact is via separate contact page.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners detected on this page.
  5. Social media presence includes X (Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, and Mastodon.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  7. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts found.
  8. No phone numbers or email addresses explicitly listed on this page.
  9. Website uses HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers.
  10. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a clean and modern tech stack with HTML5, CSS (Tachyons), and JavaScript. It is hosted by Gandi SAS, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with good SEO metadata including viewport settings and descriptive meta tags. No CMS or complex frameworks were detected, indicating a likely static or custom-built site. Performance is moderate with no obvious bottlenecks. The site lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms, which are technical debt areas. There are no analytics or tracking scripts detected, which aligns with privacy-conscious design but limits user behavior insights. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
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 giveupgithub.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 giveupgithub.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.