Skip to main content

Security report for linuxfoundation.org

Linux Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Linux Foundation operates as a leading non-profit organization dedicated to fostering open source technology projects and ecosystems. It serves as a neutral and trusted hub for developers and organizations worldwide, providing resources such as project hosting, developer training, security guidance, and industry events. The foundation's market position is strong, with numerous high-profile open source projects and partnerships under its umbrella, targeting developers, enterprises, and open source communities globally. Technically, the website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform, utilizing modern web technologies including jQuery, Slick Carousel, and Osano for consent management. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and SEO practices, supported by Google Tag Manager and HubSpot analytics for data collection and user tracking. Privacy compliance is well addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanisms. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs standard security headers, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security policies, vulnerability disclosure pages, and incident response contact information, which are recommended for enhanced transparency and trust. Overall, the Linux Foundation's website reflects a mature digital presence with high content quality, strong business credibility, and good security posture. The absence of WHOIS data due to privacy protection is typical for organizations of this scale and does not detract from its legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security policies, vulnerability disclosure information, and improving accessibility features to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 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

  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 linuxfoundation.org

This scan found 22 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
75
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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 linuxfoundation.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
6,702
Employees
0
Customers
6,634
Third parties
68
Weak passwords
9%

28 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for linuxfoundation.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The Linux Foundation holds a dominant position in the open source ecosystem, leveraging a non-profit business model focused on community building, project hosting, and training services. Its revenue streams likely include membership fees, training and certification programs, event sponsorships, and partnerships. The foundation targets a broad audience including developers, enterprises, and open source projects. Its extensive partnership network with projects like CNCF, OpenJS Foundation, and others enhances its competitive advantage. Growth indicators include a large number of projects, developers trained, and active contributors. The foundation's operations emphasize collaboration, neutrality, and ecosystem sustainability.

Security posture

The Linux Foundation website exhibits a solid security posture with mandatory HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and cookie consent mechanisms aligned with GDPR requirements. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a published security policy, vulnerability disclosure program, and incident response contacts represents a compliance gap and an opportunity for improvement. The site demonstrates good data protection practices but could enhance transparency by providing explicit security documentation and contacts. Overall, the security maturity level is good but not exemplary.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ emails.
  4. Enhance website accessibility to meet higher standards for users with disabilities.
  5. Add a terms of service page to clarify user agreements and legal protections.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Linux Foundation
Description
The Linux Foundation is a neutral, trusted hub for developers and organizations to code, manage, and scale open technology projects and ecosystems.
Key services
Open source project hosting, Developer training, Community management, Security resources, Events and conferences, Research and surveys
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HubSpot CMS, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Google Tag Manager, Osano Consent Management, Font Awesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
HubSpot Analytics
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Osano Consent Management
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and professionally presented.
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for large organizations.
  6. Multiple external links to reputable open source projects and partners.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  8. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure page found.
  9. No terms of service page explicitly found.
  10. Social media presence on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, GitHub.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform, integrating modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Slick Carousel for UI components. It uses Osano for cookie consent management and Google Tag Manager for analytics deployment. The site is mobile responsive with good SEO meta tags and Open Graph data for social sharing. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by external scripts and rich media content. Technical risks are minimal, with no outdated or vulnerable libraries detected. Opportunities exist to improve accessibility and add structured data for enhanced search engine understanding.
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. 72/100 +11Medium28 findingsView report
  2. 61/100 −11Medium24 findingsView report
  3. 72/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with linuxfoundation.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 linuxfoundation.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.