Skip to main content

Security report for nationalparks.org

National Park Foundation · Non-profit · United States

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The National Park Foundation website serves as the official charitable partner of the National Park Service, providing resources, fundraising, and educational outreach to support national parks across the United States. The organization positions itself as a large, reputable non-profit with a clear mission to conserve landscapes, engage youth, preserve history and culture, and promote outdoor exploration. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and strong branding consistency. It targets a broad audience including park enthusiasts, donors, educators, and the general public. Technically, the website employs a modern tech stack including JavaScript frameworks, Google Tag Manager, analytics tools like Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity, and uses secure HTTPS connections with appropriate security headers. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. External domains linked include trusted social media platforms and donation processing services. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, there is no explicit security policy or incident response information published, and WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is common for non-profits but limits transparency. Overall, the site maintains a strong security posture. The overall risk assessment is low, with the site appearing trustworthy, legitimate, and professionally managed. Strategic recommendations include publishing a security policy, adding vulnerability disclosure information, and enhancing DNSSEC deployment. These steps would further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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 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';…

  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 nationalparks.org

This scan found 17 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
75
Security headers
65
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
78

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 National Park Foundation operates as a key non-profit entity supporting the U.S. National Park Service. Its market position as the official charitable partner provides a competitive advantage and strong brand recognition. Revenue streams primarily come from donations, memberships, and corporate partnerships. The foundation targets a diverse customer base including individual donors, families, educators, and conservationists. Growth indicators include active engagement in multiple areas of work such as conservation, education, and community development. The partnership ecosystem includes corporate partners and park partners, enhancing outreach and funding capabilities. The organization's operations reflect a mature non-profit with a focus on sustainability and public engagement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented. No exposed credentials or sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The use of reputable analytics and marketing tools is balanced with privacy considerations, including a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanisms. However, the absence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure reduces transparency. The WHOIS privacy protection is justified but limits registrant visibility. Overall, the site is secure but could improve transparency and incident readiness.

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 for security issues.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Consider enabling DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Park Foundation
Description
As the official charitable partner of the National Park Service, we provide resources for the national parks. Support this uniquely American idea.
Key services
Fundraising for national parks, Youth engagement and education, Landscape and wildlife conservation, History and culture preservation, Outdoor exploration promotion, Resilience and sustainability initiatives, Community and workforce development
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Quantcast, Rockerbox, Pinterest SDK, YouTube Widget API, Bing Ads, Typekit Fonts
Frameworks
Vite (build tool), Tailwind CSS (utility-first CSS framework)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure external donation links
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Quantcast, Rockerbox
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, AppNexus (adnxs.com)
Tracking pixels
Quantcast, Microsoft Clarity, Rockerbox
Marketing tools
Pinterest SDK
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 social media and external trusted domains
  4. Use of multiple analytics and marketing tools with privacy considerations
  5. No exposed sensitive information or security vulnerabilities detected
  6. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, common for non-profits
  7. Donation processes use secure external domains
  8. No evidence of suspicious or malicious activity
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including JavaScript frameworks, Vite as a build tool, and Tailwind CSS for styling. It integrates multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing, and social media. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. The site uses preloading and modulepreload for scripts and images to improve load times. There is no explicit CMS detected, suggesting a custom or static site generation approach. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable web presence with room for performance tuning.
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 nationalparks.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 nationalparks.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.