Skip to main content

Security report for nongnu.org

Free Software Foundation, Inc. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Savannah.nongnu.org is a well-established software forge platform dedicated to hosting and supporting free software projects, both GNU and non-GNU. It operates under the auspices of the Free Software Foundation, providing a collaborative environment for developers committed to free software principles. The platform offers project hosting, bug tracking, support requests, task and patch management, serving a community of over 25,000 registered users and nearly 4,000 hosted groups. Its market position is strong within the free software ecosystem, acting as a central hub for development and distribution.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

    • 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

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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

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

Keep watching nongnu.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
0
Security headers
45
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
51

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 business model is non-profit and community-driven, focusing on providing infrastructure and services for free software development. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its affiliation with the Free Software Foundation and its commitment to 100% free software operation. Revenue streams are likely limited or based on donations and memberships to the FSF. The target audience includes free software developers, project maintainers, and contributors worldwide. The ecosystem includes partnerships with GNU and FSF domains, reinforcing its credibility and reach. Growth indicators include active user registrations and ongoing project hosting.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate. The site has taken steps to disable vulnerable services such as SFTP and regularly updates its frontend infrastructure. However, the absence of visible security headers, lack of HTTPS confirmation in the provided data, and missing privacy and cookie policies indicate gaps in security best practices and compliance. No critical vulnerabilities are evident from the content, but improvements are needed in secure communications, header implementation, and privacy compliance to enhance trust and protect user data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS site-wide with HSTS to ensure secure communications.
  2. Add standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance considerations.
  4. Reinstate secure file transfer methods after patching vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance mobile responsiveness and accessibility to improve user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Description
Savannah is a central point for development, distribution and maintenance of free software, both GNU and non-GNU. It hosts free projects that run on free operating systems without proprietary dependencies and runs entirely on free software.
Key services
Project hosting, Bug tracking, Support requests, Task management, Patch management
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Savane 3.15-5746, Trisquel Linux (frontend servers), HTTP Redirect, CGIT, GITWEB
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Disabling vulnerable SFTP service
  • Use of HTTP Redirect for git mirrors
  • Regular frontend upgrades

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
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Content is focused on free software project hosting and community support.
  3. No privacy or cookie policies found, indicating potential compliance gaps.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found; only contact form available.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS info available from provided data; security posture moderate.
  6. No advertising or tracking detected; minimal user tracking.
  7. WHOIS data is incomplete, limiting domain trust analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The platform runs on the Savane CMS version 3.15-5746, hosted on Trisquel Linux-based frontend servers. It uses git services with CGIT and GITWEB mirrors and HTTP redirects for load distribution. The technical stack is stable but somewhat dated, with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. The site lacks modern SEO and accessibility features. There is no evidence of advanced analytics or tracking, aligning with privacy-focused principles. Technical debt may exist due to older software versions and limited modernization efforts.
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 nongnu.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 nongnu.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.