Skip to main content

Security report for greenpeace.org

Greenpeace · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Greenpeace is a globally recognized environmental non-profit organization focused on activism and advocacy to promote environmental sustainability. The website serves as a landing page directing users to international and regional Greenpeace sites, featuring basic branding and messaging. The technical infrastructure leverages Cloudflare for hosting and security, and Google Tag Manager for analytics, but lacks a valid SSL/TLS certificate, which is a critical security deficiency. Security headers are partially implemented, but HSTS is not effectively enabled, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating gaps in compliance and user data protection. Overall, the website provides minimal content on the landing page with basic design and navigation, reflecting a need for improved user engagement and transparency.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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 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';…

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

Keep watching greenpeace.org

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
65
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
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

Greenpeace operates as a large non-profit entity with a strong global presence in environmental advocacy. The website targets a broad audience including activists, donors, and the general public. The business model relies on donations and public support rather than commercial transactions. The presence of multiple domain verification records suggests integration with various marketing and security platforms, supporting a professional digital ecosystem. However, the lack of visible contact information and policies on the landing page may limit user trust and engagement. Greenpeace's market position as a leading environmental NGO is well established, but the website could better reflect this through enhanced content and transparency.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weakened by the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate and lack of HTTPS support, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While some security headers are present, the critical HSTS header is not effectively enabled, reducing protection against protocol downgrade attacks. No vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE were detected, and no vulnerable libraries were identified. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, indicates compliance gaps. Overall, the security maturity is low to moderate, requiring urgent improvements in encryption and policy transparency to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Enable and configure HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload flags to enforce secure connections.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Add visible contact information and security incident response channels to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Implement a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to encourage responsible reporting and improve security culture.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare as a hosting and CDN provider, with Google Tag Manager integrated for analytics and tracking. The HTML content is valid but minimal, with basic CSS styling and no advanced frameworks or CMS detected. Performance data is missing, indicating potential slow loading or lack of measurement. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with viewport meta tags present but no advanced ARIA or accessibility features. SEO is minimal with meta tags and Open Graph tags but no structured data. The lack of SSL/TLS and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but outdated in security and performance aspects, with opportunities for modernization and 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. 76/100Low24 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with greenpeace.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 greenpeace.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.