Skip to main content

Security report for greenpeace.org

Greenpeace · Non-profit · N/a

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

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Greenpeace is a globally recognized environmental non-profit organization dedicated to environmental activism and advocacy. The website serves as a global landing page directing users to country-specific Greenpeace sites, supporting their mission to engage a worldwide audience in environmental causes. The site is professionally designed with consistent branding and clear navigation, targeting a broad audience including activists, donors, and the general public. Technically, the website employs modern tracking and advertising technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Taboola, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is mobile optimized and structured for good user experience, though some SEO and accessibility features could be enhanced. The absence of visible security headers and privacy policies on this landing page suggests room for improvement in security and compliance practices. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS (implied by the URL) but lacks explicit security headers and visible privacy or cookie policies, which are critical for GDPR compliance and user trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed request, but the domain is well-known and trusted, with privacy protection justified for this type of organization. Overall, Greenpeace's website is credible and professionally maintained but would benefit from enhanced transparency regarding privacy, cookie policies, and security best practices to improve compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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 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 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

      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 greenpeace.org

This scan found 15 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
75
Security headers
65
Email security
98
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
76

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 holds a strong market position as a leading global environmental NGO with a large international footprint. Its business model is based on non-profit advocacy, relying on donations and public engagement. The organization targets environmentally conscious individuals and communities worldwide, leveraging a network of country-specific sites to localize its campaigns. Greenpeace's competitive advantage lies in its global brand recognition, activist network, and consistent messaging. The website reflects a mature digital presence but could improve in compliance and security transparency. Partnerships and subsidiary domains are not explicitly identified in the provided data, but Greenpeace's global structure suggests a decentralized operational model.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS usage and no visible vulnerabilities in the analyzed content. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces its defense-in-depth. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and no visible incident response or security contact information indicate compliance gaps, particularly regarding GDPR and data protection regulations. The WHOIS data is unavailable, but the domain's legitimacy is supported by its global NGO status. Enhancing security headers, publishing clear privacy and cookie policies, and providing incident response contacts would significantly improve the security maturity and compliance stance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies with explicit GDPR compliance statements and consent mechanisms.
  3. Provide visible contact information for security incidents and designate a data protection officer or security contact.
  4. Conduct regular security audits to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities and ensure compliance with relevant regulations.
  5. Enhance SEO and accessibility features to improve user experience and broaden audience reach.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Greenpeace
Description
Greenpeace is a global environmental non-profit organization focused on environmental activism and advocacy to change the world for a sustainable future.
Key services
Environmental campaigns, Advocacy, Public awareness, Activism
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Taboola, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Taboola
Marketing tools
Taboola
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a global landing page for Greenpeace with links to country-specific sites
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on this landing page
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the provided HTML
  4. Uses Google Tag Manager and Taboola for analytics and advertising
  5. No visible security headers or explicit security policies in the HTML
  6. Content is professional, relevant, and safe for general audiences
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to malformed request; domain is known and trusted
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based stack with Google Tag Manager and Taboola for analytics and advertising. The HTML structure is valid and includes responsive design elements for mobile optimization. However, no CMS or hosting provider information is discernible from the provided data. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to improve speed. The site lacks advanced accessibility features and comprehensive SEO metadata beyond basic Open Graph and Twitter cards. Technical debt appears low, but improvements in security headers and privacy compliance are needed to reduce operational risks.
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. 76/100 +26Low24 findingsView report
  2. 50/100Medium22 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.