Skip to main content

Security report for openstreetmap.org

OpenStreetMap Foundation · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

OpenStreetMap is a globally recognized non-profit organization providing a free, editable map of the world created by a community of contributors. The platform serves a broad audience including general users, developers, and mapping enthusiasts. It operates under an open license model supported by donations and corporate memberships, positioning itself as a leader in open geospatial data. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as Leaflet.js for mapping, Turbo.js for dynamic page updates, and is hosted on Fastly's CDN infrastructure, ensuring fast and responsive user experience across devices. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS, uses CSRF tokens, and implements content security policies, reflecting a mature security posture. However, it lacks explicit cookie consent mechanisms and a public vulnerability disclosure policy, which are areas for improvement. Overall, the domain and website appear legitimate and trustworthy, though WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, which is justified for this type of organization.

Scanned

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

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

4 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.

    • 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

    • 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

  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 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 openstreetmap.org

This scan found 16 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
80
Email security
73
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
76

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

OpenStreetMap operates as a non-profit entity in the technology sector, focusing on open geospatial data and community-driven mapping services. Its business model relies on community contributions, corporate sponsorships, and donations. The platform enjoys a strong market position as the leading open-source mapping project, with a global user base and active contributor community. The website links to partner organizations such as Fastly and the OpenStreetMap Foundation, indicating a robust partnership ecosystem. The absence of direct contact information on the main site suggests a focus on community engagement rather than direct commercial sales. Growth indicators include ongoing events like State of the Map and continuous platform enhancements. Strategic observations highlight the importance of enhancing privacy compliance and security transparency to maintain trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enforcement, use of security headers including Content-Security-Policy with nonce, and CSRF protection on forms. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The use of Matomo analytics indicates a privacy-conscious approach to user tracking. However, the lack of a published vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file limits transparency and incident response readiness. No contact channels for security incidents were found. Compliance with GDPR is partial, with privacy and cookie policies present but lacking explicit consent mechanisms. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by formalizing incident response and improving privacy controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a clear cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  2. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and incident response.
  3. Enhance privacy policy details to explicitly address GDPR compliance and data retention practices.
  4. Provide dedicated security contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Regularly review and update security headers and conduct security audits to maintain a strong security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Description
OpenStreetMap is a free wiki world map created by contributors worldwide and free to use under an open license.
Key services
Map data provision, Map editing tools, Routing services, Community engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Leaflet.js, Turbo.js, Bootstrap, SVG icons
Frameworks
Turbo (Hotwire)
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF tokens present
  • Secure forms
  • No exposed sensitive data

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

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 challenges.
  2. Content is rich and relevant to mapping and community engagement.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main pages.
  4. Strong use of open source and modern web technologies.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are minimal but present.
  6. No explicit security incident or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. Analytics usage is minimal and privacy-respecting (Matomo).
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and efficient technology stack including JavaScript frameworks like Leaflet.js for interactive maps and Turbo.js for dynamic page updates. Hosting on Fastly CDN ensures fast content delivery and scalability. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS is detected, indicating a custom or static site approach. Performance is fast with no broken elements or errors observed. Technical risks are minimal, but the absence of explicit privacy and security disclosures could pose compliance risks. Opportunities exist to further modernize privacy controls and enhance security transparency.
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. 76/100Low25 findingsView report
  2. 76/100 −1Low25 findingsView report
  3. 77/100Low21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with openstreetmap.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 openstreetmap.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.