Skip to main content

Security report for jnjfoundation.com

J&J Foundation · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Email security and SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

The J&J Foundation website represents a philanthropic entity likely affiliated with Johnson & Johnson, focusing on community and social initiatives. The site targets a general audience including potential donors and community partners. The business model is non-profit, with key services centered on charitable programs. The website uses modern web technologies including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and a CMS platform likely Brightspot. It is mobile optimized and uses HTTPS for secure communications. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data and lack of visible privacy policies or contact information reduce trustworthiness. Security posture is moderate with standard tracking and cookie consent mechanisms but lacks explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the site is functional but could improve transparency and compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

2 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. 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching jnjfoundation.com

This scan found 16 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
80
Security headers
80
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
80

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 in the non-profit sector with a focus on healthcare and community support. Its market position is implied to be strong due to association with Johnson & Johnson, a large enterprise. The business model relies on philanthropic initiatives and community engagement. The website content is basic but professional, targeting a broad audience. The use of established analytics and consent tools indicates awareness of digital marketing and privacy trends. However, the lack of detailed business information, contact details, and WHOIS transparency suggests room for improvement in credibility and stakeholder engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and cookie consent mechanisms are implemented, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. However, no advanced security headers are detected, and there is no visible security policy or incident response contact information. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The site would benefit from enhanced security headers, explicit privacy and security policies, and clear incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and terms of service policies accessible from the website.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Provide clear contact information including a security or abuse contact email and phone number.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration data to ensure domain legitimacy and transparency.
  5. Enhance website content quality and navigation to improve user experience and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
J&J Foundation
Description
The website appears to represent the J&J Foundation, likely a philanthropic or charitable entity associated with Johnson & Johnson, focusing on community and social initiatives.
Key services
Philanthropic initiatives, Community support programs
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Brightspot CMS (implied by resource URLs), Flickity (carousel library), Custom Elements Polyfill
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  3. Cookie consent banner and scripts are implemented, indicating some privacy compliance effort.
  4. No visible contact information or forms found on the homepage HTML.
  5. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  6. Use of modern tracking and analytics tools like Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity.
  7. Website uses HTTPS and loads external resources securely.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML content.
  9. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or security incident response information.
  10. No data protection officer contact or GDPR compliance statements found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager, and Flickity for UI components. It appears to be built on Brightspot CMS, indicated by resource URLs. The site loads external scripts asynchronously to optimize performance and uses polyfills for browser compatibility. Mobile optimization is good, and fonts are preloaded for performance. However, no advanced frameworks or platforms are explicitly detected. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in SEO and accessibility features. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and richer content structure.
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 jnjfoundation.com. 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 jnjfoundation.com.

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.