Skip to main content

Security report for overturemaps.org

Overture Maps Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Overture Maps Foundation is a Linux Foundation affiliated project focused on providing free and open map data to support developers and organizations building map services and geospatial applications. The foundation emphasizes collaborative map building, data interoperability, quality assurance, and structured data schemas to create a reliable and easy-to-use open map data ecosystem. Their market position is that of a key contributor and integrator in the open geospatial data space, leveraging partnerships with major open source and industry organizations. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with a modern theme and plugins for SEO and event management, but suffers from performance issues and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security and user trust. Security posture is basic with no advanced headers, no DNSSEC, and no published vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies. The site uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing, but lacks explicit cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the website is professionally designed and content-rich, targeting developers and community members interested in open map data.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

4 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 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 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 overturemaps.org

This scan found 18 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
90
Security headers
25
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
66

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 foundation operates as a non-profit open data project under the Linux Foundation umbrella, focusing on geospatial data interoperability and quality. Their business model is community and membership-driven, with an emphasis on collaboration among members, civic organizations, and open data sources. They maintain a member landscape and provide resources such as technical spotlights, case studies, and events to engage their audience. Their partnerships with the Linux Foundation and Joint Development Foundation enhance credibility and market reach. The foundation targets developers and organizations requiring reliable open map data, positioning itself as a key enabler in the geospatial technology ecosystem.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is basic. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and modern TLS protocols exposes users to potential data interception risks. Lack of DNSSEC and CAA records reduces DNS security. No security headers or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, indicating limited formal security governance. The site uses Google Tag Manager, which introduces tracking but no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present, raising privacy compliance concerns. Incident response readiness and data protection officer contact information are not found, suggesting gaps in compliance with GDPR and other regulations. Overall, the security posture requires significant improvements to meet industry best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting TLS 1.2 or 1.3 to secure data in transit.
  2. Implement DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS security and certificate issuance control.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and improve transparency.
  5. Establish a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR and other privacy regulations to enhance user trust and legal compliance.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with the Salient theme and uses popular plugins including Yoast SEO and The Events Calendar with Pro extensions. It integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. Hosting appears to be on Amazon AWS infrastructure. The site has a large page size and high resource count, resulting in slow load times. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and ARIA labels. However, the lack of SSL and modern security configurations pose risks. The technical stack is modern but requires optimization for performance and security hardening to reduce technical debt and operational risks.
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 overturemaps.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 overturemaps.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.