Skip to main content

Security report for oregonhistoryproject.org

Oregon History Project · Education · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Oregon History Project is a digital educational platform operated by the Oregon Historical Society, providing public access to a rich collection of historical records, narratives, interpretive essays, and educational resources focused on Oregon's history. The website serves educators, students, historians, and the general public with curated archival content and digital exhibits. It is supported by reputable foundations and government cultural trusts, reinforcing its non-profit educational mission. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, Foundation CSS, and various JavaScript libraries for UI components and galleries. It is hosted on Microsoft Azure, indicating a reliable cloud infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO basics, though some improvements in meta descriptions and privacy policies are needed. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and does not expose sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which are important for compliance and user trust. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain trust analysis, but the strong organizational affiliations and funding sources support legitimacy. Overall, the site is a trustworthy, well-maintained educational resource with moderate technical sophistication and a good security baseline. Enhancements in privacy compliance and security headers would further strengthen its posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching oregonhistoryproject.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
75
Security headers
60
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
68

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention oregonhistoryproject.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for oregonhistoryproject.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The Oregon History Project occupies a niche in the educational and cultural heritage sector, leveraging digital technology to make historical archives accessible. Its competitive advantage lies in its affiliation with the Oregon Historical Society and funding from established foundations and government bodies. The business model is non-profit, focusing on public education rather than commercial revenue. The target audience includes educators, students, historians, and the general public interested in Oregon history. The partnership ecosystem includes cultural trusts and foundations, enhancing credibility and resource availability. Growth potential exists in expanding digital exhibits and educational outreach. The platform's operations are supported by a modern cloud infrastructure and a well-integrated technology stack, enabling scalable content delivery and user engagement. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to improve privacy compliance and security transparency to align with evolving regulatory requirements.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring encrypted communications. No sensitive data leakage or vulnerable libraries were detected in the source code. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents a gap in defense-in-depth measures. There is no visible privacy policy or cookie consent mechanism, which may pose compliance risks under GDPR or similar regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly documented, limiting transparency and preparedness signals. The WHOIS data is unavailable, which reduces domain trustworthiness but does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit educational site but would benefit from implementing recommended headers, formal privacy documentation, and incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear user consent mechanisms to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add essential security headers such as CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and improve security transparency.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents or abuse reports to demonstrate incident response readiness.
  5. Regularly review and update WHOIS registration data to ensure domain registration transparency and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Oregon History Project
Description
The Oregon History Project is a digital resource of the Oregon Historical Society, making hundreds of historical records and expert scholarship accessible to the public. It provides access to historical records, interpretive essays, narratives, exhibits, and educator guides focused on Oregon's history.
Key services
Digital archival records, Historical narratives, Interpretive essays, Educational guides, Digital exhibits
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.5.1, Bootstrap CSS and JS, Foundation CSS, Google Fonts (Raleway), Typekit Fonts, LightGallery, Owl Carousel, Masonry JS
Platforms
Azure Web Apps
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by og:url https)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-structured digital archive for Oregon history.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies explicitly found on homepage.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on homepage.
  4. Uses modern web technologies and is hosted on Azure.
  5. No security headers detected in HTML source.
  6. Google Analytics is used for tracking.
  7. No signs of adult or inappropriate content.
  8. WHOIS data is unavailable or blocked, limiting domain trust analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a solid technical foundation using popular front-end libraries and frameworks such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and Foundation CSS. It leverages Google Fonts and Adobe Typekit for typography, enhancing visual appeal. The use of Azure Web Apps as hosting indicates a scalable and reliable cloud environment. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, particularly in SEO metadata completeness and caching strategies. Accessibility features are well considered, including ARIA roles and keyboard navigation support. The site is mobile responsive with a clear navigation structure. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. The technical debt appears low, but adding modern security headers and privacy compliance features would modernize the platform further and reduce risk.
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 oregonhistoryproject.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 oregonhistoryproject.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.