Skip to main content

Security report for jointdevelopment.org

Joint Development Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Joint Development Foundation operates as a non-profit consortium providing legal and corporate infrastructure to facilitate the rapid establishment and operation of specification development and open source projects. The website positions itself as a 'consortium in a box' offering established legal agreements and a 501(c)6 corporate umbrella to reduce barriers for collaborative projects. The site targets technology consortia and specification developers, hosting a variety of projects with clear branding and partnership with the Linux Foundation. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with common plugins and themes, delivering moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is basic with a valid SSL certificate but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could improve privacy compliance and security hardening.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

7 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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

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

Keep watching jointdevelopment.org

This scan found 27 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
58

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 Joint Development Foundation occupies a niche in the technology sector as a facilitator for lightweight consortium projects, offering legal and corporate services without the overhead of full incorporation. Its business model is non-profit, relying on project hosting and optional paid services. The foundation's partnership with the Linux Foundation and hosting of multiple recognized projects enhances its market credibility. The website content and structure reflect a focus on transparency and ease of project initiation. However, the absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a preference for controlled communication channels via forms. The foundation's ecosystem includes a variety of technology-focused projects, indicating a broad but specialized target audience.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate issued by a recognized authority, ensuring encrypted communications. However, it lacks critical security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and others that enhance protection against common web attacks. No DMARC record is present, which could expose the domain to email spoofing risks. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file limits transparency in security incident handling. Forms are implemented via HubSpot, a reputable third-party service, which likely provides secure data handling. Overall, the security posture is adequate for an informational site but requires enhancements to meet higher security standards and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  3. Publish a cookie policy and implement a consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and consider adding a security.txt file.
  5. Add DMARC DNS records to protect against email spoofing and phishing.
  6. Enhance website performance optimization to reduce load times.
  7. Provide clear contact emails and phone numbers for improved business credibility and user trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Salient theme and WPBakery Page Builder, indicating a mature and widely supported CMS platform. It integrates third-party services such as Google Tag Manager for analytics and HubSpot for form management. DNS is managed via DNSimple with no DNSSEC or CAA records configured, which could be improved for DNS security. The SSL certificate is valid but uses an unknown algorithm designation, which may warrant verification. Performance metrics show moderate load times with a large page size (~600KB) and numerous resources (~95). The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and basic accessibility features. Technical debt appears low, but security and privacy enhancements are recommended to modernize the infrastructure and compliance posture.
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. 59/100Medium34 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with jointdevelopment.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 jointdevelopment.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.