Skip to main content

Security report for gwpo-gwp.org

Global Water Partnership Organisation Gwpo · Non-profit · Sweden

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Global Water Partnership Organisation (GWPO) operates as a global action network focused on advancing water governance and climate-resilient investments to promote sustainability and equity. The website presents basic information about the organization's mission and target audience, primarily stakeholders interested in water governance and climate resilience. The business model is that of a non-profit global network with a medium organizational size and a founding year indicated as 2025, which appears inconsistent with the organization's global positioning. Technically, the website is built using the Weblium platform, employing standard web technologies such as HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. Hosting is provided by Loopia, with no advanced frameworks or analytics tools detected. The site demonstrates moderate performance and good mobile optimization but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are important for enhancing domain and web security. There is no visible security policy, incident response information, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The WHOIS data raises concerns due to a domain creation date set in the future (2025), which is unusual and undermines trust in the domain's legitimacy. Overall, the website provides basic content and functionality but lacks critical privacy, security, and compliance features. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and clarifying domain registration details to improve trustworthiness and compliance.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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

  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 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 gwpo-gwp.org

This scan found 25 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
75
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention gwpo-gwp.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for gwpo-gwp.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

GWPO positions itself as a global non-profit network dedicated to water governance and climate resilience, targeting international stakeholders and partners. The business model relies on collaboration and advocacy rather than commercial revenue streams. The organization's market position is that of a specialized global network with a focus on sustainability. The website content is basic, indicating either a new or placeholder site. No partnerships or subsidiaries are explicitly mentioned. The lack of detailed business information and contact data limits deeper business intelligence insights. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships are not evident from the website content.

Security posture

The current security posture is basic, with HTTPS enabled but lacking DNSSEC and essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, indicating low maturity in security governance. The suspicious WHOIS domain creation date further reduces confidence in the domain's legitimacy. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, which reduces privacy risks but also limits user behavior insights. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. Overall, the security posture requires significant improvements to meet standard best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  4. Add an incident response policy and contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ emails.
  5. Clarify and correct domain registration details to remove inconsistencies and improve trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Global Water Partnership Organisation Gwpo
Description
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is a global action network advancing water governance and climate-resilient investments for a sustainable and equitable future.
Key services
Advancing water governance, Promoting climate-resilient investments
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Weblium website builder, JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the HTML content
  4. No security or incident response information published
  5. Website built using Weblium platform with basic SEO and accessibility features
  6. WHOIS data shows suspicious future creation date
  7. No DNSSEC or advanced security configurations detected
  8. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  9. No advertising or marketing tools detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Weblium platform, utilizing standard web technologies without advanced frameworks or custom backend technologies. Hosting is via Loopia, a known hosting provider. The site loads CSS and JavaScript assets efficiently but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. No analytics or marketing tools are detected, indicating minimal tracking or data collection. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design but has only basic content quality and navigation clarity. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist, especially in security and compliance implementations.
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 gwpo-gwp.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 gwpo-gwp.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.