Skip to main content

Security report for openjsf.org

OpenJS Foundation · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The OpenJS Foundation is a prominent non-profit organization under The Linux Foundation umbrella, dedicated to fostering the adoption and development of JavaScript technologies globally. It serves as a collaborative hub for open source JavaScript projects, providing governance, community support, training, and events. The foundation enjoys a strong market position supported by major technology companies and a large developer community. The website reflects a professional and modern digital presence with excellent content quality and user experience. Technically, the website leverages modern web technologies including Next.js, React, and Prismic CMS, hosted on Vercel, ensuring fast performance and mobile optimization. The integration of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates moderate user tracking for analytics purposes. SEO and accessibility features are well implemented. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs standard security headers, and maintains domain registration transparency consistent with its parent organization. Minor improvements such as enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit incident response contacts could enhance security posture. Privacy compliance is strong with clear policies, though a cookie consent mechanism is absent. Overall, the OpenJS Foundation website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, security, and compliance, making it a trustworthy resource for its community and stakeholders. Strategic recommendations include enhancing DNS security, formalizing vulnerability disclosure, and improving cookie consent transparency.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of openjsf.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

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 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 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 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 openjsf.org

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
60
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
73

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 OpenJS Foundation operates as a key player in the technology sector, specifically focusing on JavaScript and web technologies. Its business model revolves around supporting open source projects through collaborative governance and community engagement. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, sponsorships, and training programs. The foundation targets developers, enterprises, and open source contributors. Its partnership ecosystem includes major tech companies such as Google, IBM, Meta, and Microsoft, enhancing its credibility and reach. The foundation's operations are transparent and aligned with industry best practices, positioning it well for sustained growth and influence in the JavaScript ecosystem.

Security posture

The foundation exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and domain registration protections. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, the absence of DNSSEC and a publicly available incident response contact or security.txt file represents areas for improvement. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. The use of third-party analytics is transparent and managed responsibly. Overall, the security culture appears robust, though formalizing incident response and vulnerability disclosure processes would strengthen resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure contact information, including a security.txt file.
  3. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply fully with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from vulnerable libraries.
  5. Enhance user trust by providing more direct contact options such as verified company emails or phone numbers.

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
The Linux Foundation
Registration number
Registration now
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
OpenJS Foundation
Description
OpenJS promotes the widespread adoption and continued development of key JavaScript technologies worldwide.
Key services
Project hosting and support, Community collaboration, Training and events, Governance and standards
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React, Prismic CMS, Google Analytics, Vercel hosting
Frameworks
React, Next.js
Platforms
Vercel
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No DNSSEC enabled (recommend enabling)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is relevant and comprehensive about the OpenJS Foundation.
  3. Strong presence of trust signals including major member logos and social media.
  4. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious activity.
  5. Good security posture with HTTPS and security headers.
  6. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; contact via form.
  7. No cookie consent banner detected despite cookie policy presence.
  8. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure page found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack featuring Next.js and React, supported by Prismic CMS for content management and hosted on Vercel, ensuring high performance and scalability. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Analytics integration is comprehensive but balanced with privacy considerations. No technical debt or legacy technology issues were identified. Opportunities exist to further modernize security configurations and improve privacy mechanisms.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 73/100Medium31 findingsView report
  2. 73/100 −6Medium32 findingsView report
  3. 79/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with openjsf.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 openjsf.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.