Skip to main content

Security report for nonprofittech.com

.orgSource · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Nonprofit Technology is a content aggregation platform focused on providing expert insights, webinars, and resources tailored for the nonprofit technology community. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and offers curated content from various nonprofit and technology-related sources. It is partnered with .orgSource, which is prominently featured as a sponsor. The platform supports user engagement through newsletters and resource submissions. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Google reCAPTCHA to enhance user experience and security. The site is mobile optimized and implements cookie consent mechanisms aligned with GDPR requirements. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and use of CAPTCHA, though some security headers could be improved. The absence of WHOIS data is a notable anomaly but does not detract significantly from the site's legitimacy given the professional content and partner branding. Overall, the site presents a trustworthy and valuable resource for nonprofit professionals interested in technology and fundraising.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 100 · Low
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 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 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. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching nonprofittech.com

This scan found 20 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
67
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
75

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 website occupies a niche market position as a leading aggregator of nonprofit technology content, serving a medium-sized audience of nonprofit professionals. Its business model revolves around content curation, newsletter distribution, webinars, and resource sharing, supported by partnerships such as with .orgSource. The platform leverages multiple external content sources and social media channels to maintain relevance and engagement. Revenue streams likely include advertising, sponsored content, and possibly lead generation for partners. The site demonstrates growth potential through its comprehensive resource offerings and community participation features. However, the lack of direct contact information and limited transparency in domain registration could be areas for improvement to enhance business credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced site-wide, and Google reCAPTCHA is used to protect forms from automated abuse. Cookie consent banners and modals indicate awareness of privacy regulations such as GDPR. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are not evident, which could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available, which limits transparency. Overall, the site follows basic security best practices but could benefit from enhanced header configurations and published security policies to improve trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users to enhance transparency and trust.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and scripts to prevent vulnerabilities from outdated components.
  4. Enhance contact information availability, including security contact channels, to improve communication and compliance.
  5. Consider registering WHOIS information or using a privacy service with transparent justification to improve domain trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
.orgSource
Description
Nonprofit Technology provides expert insights personalized for the nonprofit technology community, aggregating industry-leading thought leadership across blogs, webinars, and resources.
Key services
Curated articles, Webinars, White papers/eBooks/Guides, Newsletter subscriptions, Widgets for content integration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2 and v3, jQuery (implied by $ usage in scripts), Bootstrap CSS framework, FontAwesome icons
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
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 nonprofit technology and fundraising.
  3. Strong cookie consent and privacy policy presence indicating GDPR awareness.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage content.
  5. Use of modern analytics and tracking tools with user consent.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, which is unusual but site appears legitimate.
  7. No security policy or incident response information publicly available.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  9. Site uses HTTPS and Google reCAPTCHA for form protection.
  10. Partner branding with .orgSource is prominent.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, Google Analytics and Tag Manager for analytics, and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts and use of CDN-hosted resources. The site lacks explicit CMS identification but appears custom-built or lightly customized. Accessibility features are basic but present. Technical risks include missing security headers and potential reliance on third-party scripts that require regular updates. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional user experience but could be enhanced with improved security configurations and accessibility compliance.
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 nonprofittech.com. 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 nonprofittech.com.

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.