Skip to main content

Security report for jbwhitehead.org

Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation is a philanthropic non-profit organization focused on supporting metro Atlanta communities through grants in education, health, youth, and human services. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image, highlighting its grant programs and partner foundations. The foundation targets non-profit organizations and community groups within the metro Atlanta region, positioning itself as a regional grantmaking entity. Technically, the website is built on the Squarespace platform, leveraging modern web technologies and delivering a good user experience with mobile optimization and clear navigation. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and HSTS enabled, though there is room for improvement by adding additional security headers and formal privacy and cookie policies. The absence of WHOIS data due to privacy protection is typical for non-profit entities and does not raise immediate concerns. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professionally maintained, but it would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security transparency.

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

5 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. 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 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';…

  3. 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

  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.

    • 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 jbwhitehead.org

This scan found 28 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
54
Security headers
45
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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

The foundation operates as a small-sized non-profit entity with a clear focus on grantmaking in key community sectors. Its market position is regional, serving metro Atlanta. The business model revolves around philanthropic funding and grant distribution, with partnerships evident through linked foundation sites. The website content is relevant and professional, supporting the foundation's mission and target audience. There is no evidence of commercial activities or advertising, indicating a pure non-profit orientation. The foundation's digital presence is stable but could be enhanced by adding more detailed business and compliance information to increase transparency and stakeholder trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and HSTS enabled, protecting data in transit. No exposed sensitive information or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the site lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and does not provide information on incident response or vulnerability disclosure, which are important for security maturity. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, representing compliance gaps especially under GDPR and similar regulations. The security posture is adequate for the site's purpose but could be improved by implementing comprehensive privacy and security policies and incident response mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with user consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance security posture.
  3. Provide clear information on security incident response and vulnerability disclosure to build trust and readiness.
  4. Consider adding verified contact emails and phone numbers for better business credibility and user support.
  5. Regularly review and update WHOIS information and ensure domain registration details are accessible to support legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation
Description
Supporting metro Atlanta communities through grants in education, health, youth, and human services. Learn more about our programs and how to apply.
Key services
Grants in education, Grants in health, Grants in youth services, Grants in human services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Squarespace, JavaScript, YUI, Typekit Fonts, Font Awesome, CDNJS, jsDelivr
Frameworks
Squarespace CMS
Platforms
Squarespace Hosting
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No suspicious scripts detected

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 hosted on Squarespace with a professional design
  2. Content is focused on philanthropic grant programs in metro Atlanta
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on homepage; contact form available
  4. No privacy or cookie policies detected, which is a compliance gap
  5. No security incident or vulnerability disclosure information found
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed response or privacy protection
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond standard Squarespace assets
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Squarespace, a modern and widely used CMS platform, ensuring ease of maintenance and good performance. The tech stack includes JavaScript libraries, Typekit fonts, and Font Awesome icons, contributing to a visually appealing and responsive design. The site loads moderately fast and is optimized for mobile devices. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. There is no evidence of heavy tracking or advertising scripts, which aligns with the non-profit nature. Technical risks are minimal, but the site could benefit from enhanced security headers and privacy compliance features.
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 jbwhitehead.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 jbwhitehead.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.