Skip to main content

Security report for greenpeace.org.au

Greenpeace Australia Pacific · Non-profit · Australia

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is a prominent non-profit environmental organization dedicated to combating climate change, protecting oceans, forests, and promoting sustainability through advocacy, peaceful direct action, and public engagement. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and strong branding consistent with its mission. The organization targets a broad audience including environmental activists, donors, volunteers, and the general public. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Bootstrap framework and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, TikTok Pixel, Hotjar, and social media pixels, indicating a sophisticated approach to user engagement and data collection. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and appropriate security headers, though there is room for improvement in publishing explicit security policies and incident response information. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences, with no signs of blocking or WAF interference.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Cloudflare, Google Ads

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. 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.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  3. 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 greenpeace.org.au

This scan found 17 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
90
Email security
45
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
74

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

Greenpeace Australia Pacific holds a leading position in the environmental non-profit sector within Australia and the Pacific region. Its business model relies on advocacy, fundraising, volunteer mobilization, and public education. The organization leverages a wide partnership ecosystem visible through its social media and external links. The website's content and structure support donor engagement and activism, with clear calls to action and impact reporting. The use of multiple tracking and marketing technologies suggests a data-driven approach to growth and outreach. The absence of detailed WHOIS registrant data is typical for non-profits and does not detract from the organization's credibility. The site’s extensive content and professional design indicate a large organizational size and established market presence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with HTTPS enabled and multiple security headers implemented, reducing common web vulnerabilities. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a publicly available security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates areas for improvement in transparency and readiness. The extensive use of third-party scripts and tracking pixels introduces potential risk vectors that should be regularly audited. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by formalizing security governance documentation and incident response procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information for security issues.
  4. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels for security risks.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance disclosures, including data retention policies and user rights.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Description
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is a non-profit environmental organization focused on fighting climate change, protecting oceans, forests, and promoting a plastic-free future through peaceful direct action and advocacy.
Key services
Environmental campaigns, Public advocacy, Fundraising, Volunteer coordination, Educational resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, TikTok Pixel, Hotjar, Taboola, Adalyser, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Bing Ads, Spotify Pixel, HubSpot Analytics
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens (implied by WordPress)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, TikTok Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Bing Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Taboola, Adalyser, Bing Ads
Tracking pixels
TikTok Pixel, Hotjar, Spotify Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
HubSpot Analytics, Optimonk
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. Content is rich, professionally presented, and focused on environmental advocacy.
  3. Strong use of modern tracking and analytics technologies.
  4. No exposed sensitive information or security misconfigurations detected.
  5. WHOIS data is limited due to privacy and registrar restrictions but domain appears legitimate.
  6. Multiple social media channels linked, enhancing trust and outreach.
  7. Donation and engagement mechanisms are clearly presented.
  8. No explicit or adult content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap for responsive design, ensuring excellent mobile optimization and accessibility. It integrates a broad set of analytics and marketing technologies, including Google Analytics, TikTok Pixel, Hotjar, and social media tracking pixels, supporting extensive user behavior analysis and targeted outreach. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple external scripts and rich media content. The site uses modern SEO practices with comprehensive meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine visibility. Technical debt appears low, but ongoing optimization of third-party dependencies and performance tuning could improve load times and user experience further.
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 greenpeace.org.au. 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 greenpeace.org.au.

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.