Skip to main content

Security report for majorcitiespf.org

Fundació Carles Pi i Sunyer · Government · Spain

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Major Cities Public Finance Project website serves as an academic and governmental platform focused on the comparative study of financing major cities internationally. It is affiliated with reputable institutions such as Fundació Carles Pi i Sunyer, the Barcelona City Council, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, indicating a non-profit research orientation. The site provides informational content and an interactive map (using deprecated Flash technology) to support its mission of fostering information exchange among participating cities. Technically, the website is basic and outdated, relying on legacy Flash content and lacking modern web development practices such as mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating low digital maturity and compliance with current web standards. From a security perspective, the site shows weaknesses including the use of deprecated technologies and absence of visible security best practices. The malformed WHOIS data limits the ability to verify domain legitimacy fully, although the external links to credible institutions lend some trust. No contact information or incident response channels are provided, which reduces transparency and user trust. Overall, the website is functional for informational purposes but requires significant modernization and security improvements to meet current standards and enhance trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching majorcitiespf.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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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 project occupies a niche academic and governmental research space focused on public finance challenges faced by major cities globally. Its competitive advantage lies in its network of participating cities and its affiliation with established institutions. The business model is non-profit and research-driven, targeting policymakers, academics, and city officials. Revenue streams are likely grant or institution-funded rather than commercial. The partnership ecosystem includes local government and academic entities. Growth indicators are not evident from the website. Strategic observations suggest the need for digital modernization and enhanced transparency to improve outreach and credibility.

Security posture

The current security posture is low to moderate. The absence of HTTPS enforcement and security headers, combined with the use of deprecated Flash technology, exposes the site to potential vulnerabilities. There is no evidence of data protection policies, incident response readiness, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Compliance with GDPR or other data protection regulations is not demonstrated. The lack of contact information for security incidents further weakens the security culture. Business impact of these gaps is moderate given the informational nature of the site but should be addressed to protect user trust and data integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Migrate all Flash content to modern HTML5 and JavaScript to improve security and accessibility.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL certificates and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance transparency.
  4. Publish clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Introduce security headers and conduct regular security audits to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fundació Carles Pi i Sunyer
Description
The Major Cities Public Finance Project investigates, discusses, and reflects upon the challenges of financing major cities internationally. It aims to create a network for information exchange among participating cities and develop comparative financial analyses.
Key services
Comparative financial studies, Information exchange network, Research publications
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML, CSS, Flash (deprecated)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses deprecated Flash technology for interactive map.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on homepage.
  4. External links point to reputable academic and governmental domains.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust verification.
  6. Website content is in Spanish with some English elements.
  7. No visible analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  8. No social media links found.
  9. Website lacks modern security best practices and HTTPS enforcement is unknown.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML and CSS, lacking modern frameworks or CMS platforms. The use of Flash for interactive content is outdated and unsupported by most modern browsers, negatively impacting user experience and security. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal data collection. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, limiting usability. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not discernible. Performance is moderate but could be improved by removing legacy technologies and optimizing assets. Technical debt is evident and modernization is recommended to reduce operational risks.
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 majorcitiespf.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 majorcitiespf.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.