Skip to main content

Security report for oipa.org

Organizzazione Internazionale Protezione Animali · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.oipa.org represents the Organizzazione Internazionale Protezione Animali (OIPA), an international non-profit organization dedicated to animal protection and environmental advocacy. The organization is affiliated with several United Nations bodies and the European Commission, indicating a credible international presence. The website content is focused on promoting animal welfare, opposing vivisection, and encouraging vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. The site is simple and functional but lacks advanced technical features or modern CMS frameworks. No forms or contact details are provided, limiting direct engagement opportunities. From a technical perspective, the website shows basic implementation with no detected modern technologies or CMS. The performance and mobile optimization are moderate to basic, with no evidence of security headers or HTTPS enforcement in the provided data. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates a gap in compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. Security posture is minimal with no visible security best practices or incident response information. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed request, which reduces transparency and trustworthiness, although the website's UN affiliations and content suggest legitimacy. No advertising or analytics scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. Overall, the website is safe for general audiences and serves as an informational platform for the NGO. However, improvements in security, privacy compliance, and technical modernization are recommended to enhance trust and user engagement.

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

7 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 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';…

  2. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching oipa.org

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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

OIPA operates as a small international non-profit NGO focused on animal and environmental protection. Its market position is strengthened by affiliations with UN bodies and the European Commission, which provide credibility and influence. The organization targets a global audience interested in animal rights, environmental issues, and vegetarian/vegan lifestyles. Revenue streams likely include donations and grants typical for NGOs, although no direct monetization or e-commerce features are present on the website. The partnership ecosystem includes UN agencies but no other commercial partners are evident. The website's simple structure and lack of advanced digital tools suggest limited digital maturity, which could be improved to expand outreach and engagement.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of the website is low. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, which are critical for protecting user data and preventing common web attacks. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, limiting transparency and preparedness. The lack of contact information further reduces the ability to report security issues. While no explicit vulnerabilities were detected in the content, the minimal security posture poses risks to user trust and data protection. Enhancing security controls and compliance measures is essential for improving the organization's security culture and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all website traffic.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Introduce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security and incident response contacts.
  5. Modernize the website technology stack using a CMS or frameworks to improve maintainability and security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Organizzazione Internazionale Protezione Animali
Description
The OIPA is an international non-profit organization focused on the protection and valorisation of nature and the environment, abolition of vivisection worldwide, and defense of animals from mistreatment including hunting, circuses, bullfights, festivals, stray animals, furs, trafficking, zoos, intensive farming, slaughterhouses, and promotion of vegetarian/vegan nutrition.
Key services
Animal protection advocacy, Environmental protection, Promotion of vegetarian/vegan nutrition, International campaigns against animal mistreatment
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

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
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF detected.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed request or privacy protection.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage content.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links are present in the HTML content.
  5. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  6. Website content is focused on animal protection and environmental advocacy.
  7. Minimal technical sophistication; no modern frameworks or CMS detected.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  9. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  10. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML and CSS without detectable modern frameworks or CMS platforms. There is no evidence of JavaScript libraries or analytics tools. The site structure is simple with static content and minimal interactivity. Performance is moderate but could benefit from optimization and mobile responsiveness improvements. The lack of security headers and HTTPS is a technical risk. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not available. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and would benefit from modernization to enhance security, performance, and user experience.
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 oipa.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 oipa.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.