Skip to main content

Security report for knightfoundation.org

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation · Non-profit · United States

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

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Knight Foundation is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to supporting journalism, arts, and community development across American cities with historical ties to the Knight brothers. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and a professional design that aligns with its mission and audience. Technically, the site is built on WordPress VIP, leveraging modern analytics and tracking tools, and is optimized for mobile and accessibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and domain transfer protections, though DNSSEC is not enabled and explicit security policies are not published. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a clear privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site demonstrates high business credibility and trustworthiness.

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. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

  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 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 knightfoundation.org

This scan found 21 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
65
Security headers
45
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
71

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 knightfoundation.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for knightfoundation.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

Knight Foundation holds a strong market position as a major social investor in journalism and community initiatives. Its business model focuses on grant funding and social impact investments. The foundation targets non-profit organizations, journalists, artists, and researchers, leveraging partnerships and a broad community network. The website content and structure support transparency and engagement, with active newsroom updates and research publications. The foundation's long domain age and consistent branding reinforce its credibility. The use of multiple analytics and tracking services indicates a data-driven approach to audience engagement.

Security posture

The website maintains a good security posture with HTTPS enforced, clientTransferProhibited domain status, and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, the absence of DNSSEC and a published security or incident response policy are gaps. The use of multiple third-party tracking scripts introduces potential privacy risks, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. The site would benefit from enhanced transparency around security practices and incident handling to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement a clear cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy and security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Description
Knight Foundation is a national foundation with strong local roots investing in journalism, arts, and the success of cities where the Knight brothers once published newspapers. It supports free expression, journalism, arts and culture, research in media and democracy, and community success.
Key services
Grants and funding for journalism, Support for arts and culture, Community development programs, Research in media and democracy
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, TikTok Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress VIP
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-related scripts (Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, TikTok Analytics, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel, Jetpack Stats
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, TikTok Pixel
Transparency
basic

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 maintained.
  2. Content is rich, relevant, and updated with recent news and research.
  3. Strong presence of social media and external authoritative links.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  5. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR compliance claims.
  6. Use of multiple third-party tracking and analytics scripts.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; contact via web form only.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress VIP platform, ensuring scalability and performance. It uses a variety of analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, TikTok Analytics, LinkedIn Insight, and Facebook Pixel, indicating a sophisticated approach to user engagement and data collection. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident in meta tags and structured content. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple external scripts. The absence of DNSSEC and explicit cookie consent are technical areas for improvement. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the foundation's mission effectively but could be enhanced with additional security and privacy 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 71/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with knightfoundation.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 knightfoundation.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.