Skip to main content

Security report for hrw.org

Human Rights Watch · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

87/100

Risk levelLow

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

Human Rights Watch is a globally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to defending human rights in over 100 countries. The website serves as a comprehensive platform for advocacy, publishing detailed reports, news releases, and multimedia content to spotlight abuses and mobilize public and governmental action. The organization maintains a strong market position as a leading human rights watchdog with a large global audience and multilingual support. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Simple Analytics. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility standards, with secure HTTPS enforcement and appropriate security headers. Security posture is strong with no detected vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy compliance is evident through a comprehensive privacy policy, cookie consent mechanisms, and GDPR adherence. However, explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly detailed. Overall, the website reflects a professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained digital presence for a reputable non-profit organization. The lack of WHOIS registrant data is consistent with privacy protection practices common among NGOs. Strategic recommendations include publishing explicit security policies, adding vulnerability disclosure information, and enhancing contact details for security matters.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      Missing X-XSS-Protection header

      Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

      What to do: Add "X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block"

    • Medium

      Missing Permissions-Policy header

      Controls browser features and APIs

      What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access

      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Permissions-Policy: accelerometer=(), autoplay=(), camera=(), cross-origin-isolated=(),…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

      Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

      What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights

  3. 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.

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

  4. 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.

    • Medium

      SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

      SSL certificate expires in 59 days

      What to do: Plan SSL certificate renewal

Keep watching hrw.org

This scan found 13 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
95
Security headers
75
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
87

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

Human Rights Watch operates as a large non-profit entity focused on human rights advocacy worldwide. Its business model centers on research, reporting, and public mobilization to influence policy and justice. The organization targets a global audience including activists, policymakers, donors, and the general public. Revenue streams likely include donations and grants, supported by a secure online donation platform. The multilingual website and extensive content library indicate a mature digital strategy and strong partnership ecosystem. The organization maintains a high level of professionalism and trust, positioning it as a leader in the human rights sector.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented. Forms are secured, and no sensitive data leakage is observed. The presence of cookie consent and privacy policy indicates compliance with privacy regulations. However, the absence of a public security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program suggests areas for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious activities were detected. Overall, the security maturity is high but could benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized security communication.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Add explicit security contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and analytics tools for security risks.
  5. Optimize website performance further to improve load times and user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Human Rights Watch
Description
Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice
Key services
Human rights investigations, Publishing reports, Advocacy and mobilization
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Lite YouTube embed, Simple Analytics
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Consent mechanism for cookies

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Simple Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Simple Analytics
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured
  2. Content is comprehensive and regularly updated
  3. Multiple language support indicates global outreach
  4. Secure donation mechanisms in place
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  6. No exposed sensitive data or security issues detected
  7. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, common for NGOs
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and secure CMS platform, indicating a well-maintained technical infrastructure. It uses Google Tag Manager and Simple Analytics for tracking and analytics, balancing data collection with privacy considerations. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with proper meta tags and SEO practices. Hosting details are not explicitly identified, but the presence of CDN and font services suggests a distributed content delivery approach. Performance is moderate, with opportunities for optimization. No technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected.
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. 87/100Low21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with hrw.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 hrw.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.