Skip to main content

Security report for guardianproject.info

Oliver+Coady, Inc · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Guardian Project is a US-based important non-profit technology organization founded in 2010, specializing in developing easy-to-use secure applications, open-source software libraries, and customized solutions aimed at protecting communications and data from unjust intrusion and monitoring. Their target audience includes average users, activists, journalists, and humanitarian organizations. The organization maintains a strong market position through long-term partnerships, notably with the Tor Project, and offers a range of privacy-focused tools and platforms such as Orbot, ProofMode, and Círculo. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with good content quality and navigation.

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

3 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 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

  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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching guardianproject.info

This scan found 18 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
72
Security headers
95
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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

Guardian Project operates primarily in the technology and non-profit sectors, focusing on privacy and security software development. Their business model revolves around open-source projects and collaborations with human rights and digital security organizations. The organization benefits from a robust partnership ecosystem including Tor Project, Article 19, Rights Action Lab, and F-Droid. Their growth is indicated by ongoing projects and community engagement via multiple social platforms. Revenue streams likely include grants, donations (e.g., Liberapay), and service contracts. The company maintains transparency with public WHOIS data and a consistent domain registration history.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place, indicating a baseline security posture. However, it lacks DNSSEC, security headers, and published security policies or incident response information. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests compliance gaps. No exposed vulnerabilities or sensitive data were detected. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by implementing additional security headers, formal policies, and transparency around incident response.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  3. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Create and publish a security policy and incident response plan including contact channels for security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain and improve security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Oliver+Coady, Inc
Description
We are a global team who builds and designs easy to use secure apps, open-source software libraries, and customized solutions that can be used around the world by any person or organization looking to protect their communications and data from unjust intrusion, interception and monitoring.
Key services
Secure apps development, Open-source software libraries, Customized secure communication solutions, Secure helpdesk systems, Privacy preserving measurement platforms
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Hugo 0.54.0, Bootstrap, jQuery, Fork Awesome, KaTeX, PhotoSwipe
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content about privacy and security projects
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on main site
  3. Strong open-source and privacy focus with multiple projects and partnerships
  4. No forms detected on main page except contact links to external/contact pages
  5. No phone numbers or emails explicitly listed on main page
  6. Social media presence on Mastodon, Twitter, Matrix, GitHub, GitLab, Liberapay
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected
  8. Good use of HTTPS and modern web technologies
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Hugo static site generator with Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for scripting, and Fork Awesome for icons. It uses KaTeX for math rendering and PhotoSwipe for image galleries. The site is mobile optimized with good navigation and SEO meta tags. Hosting provider details are not explicit. Performance is moderate with no major technical debt visible. The site does not use a CMS beyond Hugo and does not include analytics or tracking scripts, reflecting a privacy-conscious technical implementation.
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 guardianproject.info. 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 guardianproject.info.

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.