Skip to main content

Security report for gnome.org

The GNOME Project · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The GNOME Project operates as a leading open source desktop environment platform, providing an elegant and user-friendly computing experience primarily for Linux users. It offers a suite of core applications, a developer platform, and community-driven initiatives such as GNOME Circle for app certification. The project is supported by major technology organizations including Google, Red Hat, and Canonical, reflecting a strong market position within the open source ecosystem. The website clearly targets general computer users, developers, and contributors interested in open source software. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and Three.js for interactive 3D elements. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and accessible, with good SEO practices. Hosting and infrastructure are supported by reputable providers such as Fastly, Digital Ocean, and AWS, ensuring reliable performance. However, some security headers are not visibly implemented, and no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present, which are areas for improvement. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. The lack of WHOIS data is mitigated by the strong brand presence and sponsorships, indicating legitimacy. There is no visible vulnerability disclosure or incident response policy, which could enhance trust and security readiness. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced transparency and policy publication. The overall risk assessment is low, with the site demonstrating professionalism, transparency, and community engagement. Strategic recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing vulnerability disclosure policies, adding cookie consent mechanisms, and providing direct security contact information to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of gnome.org. View the latest report

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. 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 gnome.org

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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

GNOME holds a prominent position in the open source desktop environment market, widely adopted by major Linux distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and SUSE. Its business model is community-driven and donation-supported, with revenue streams primarily from sponsorships and donations. The project targets a broad audience including end users, developers, and contributors. Partnerships with leading technology companies and infrastructure providers enhance its ecosystem and operational capabilities. The project demonstrates strong growth potential through continuous development, community involvement, and ecosystem expansion via initiatives like GNOME Circle and Flathub integration.

Security posture

The GNOME website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive information. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents a minor gap. The lack of published vulnerability disclosure and incident response policies limits transparency and may affect incident handling efficiency. No direct security contact channels are provided, which could hinder timely reporting of security issues. Compliance with GDPR is indicated through a comprehensive privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are missing. Overall, the security culture appears strong but would benefit from formalized policies and enhanced communication channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response policy accessible from the website.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with privacy regulations.
  4. Provide direct security contact information such as security@gnome.org or abuse@gnome.org.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are included.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The GNOME Project
Description
An independent computing platform for everyone providing an easy and elegant way to use your computer with a suite of core apps and a developer platform.
Key services
Desktop environment software, Core applications, Developer platform, App certification and mentoring, Community engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, Three.js, GLTFLoader
Platforms
Linux
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking detected.
  2. No forms collecting personal data directly on the homepage; contact via handbook page.
  3. Strong open source community presence and transparency.
  4. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found despite privacy policy presence.
  5. No visible security headers in HTML but HTTPS is enforced.
  6. Multiple reputable sponsors and infrastructure providers listed.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web standards with HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript, including advanced libraries like Three.js for 3D graphics. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with good SEO metadata including Open Graph and Twitter cards. Hosting is supported by multiple reputable providers ensuring scalability and performance. No CMS is detected, indicating a custom or static site approach. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. The technical debt appears low, but the absence of some security headers and cookie consent mechanisms suggests areas for modernization and compliance enhancement.
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. 65/100Medium36 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gnome.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 gnome.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.