Skip to main content

Security report for ow2.org

OW2 Consortium · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

OW2 Consortium operates as a non-profit open source community organization dedicated to promoting professional-grade open source software for corporate information systems. The website reflects a mature and well-structured community platform offering project hosting, governance, and ecosystem development services. It targets open source developers, corporate IT professionals, SMEs, academics, and individuals interested in open source software. The organization maintains a strong market position with a broad portfolio of projects and active community engagement through events and webinars. Technically, the website is built on the XWiki platform with modern JavaScript libraries and frameworks, hosted by Ikoula, and employs Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility standards. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced, though it lacks some advanced security headers and explicit security policies. Privacy compliance is evident with accessible privacy and cookie policies, and GDPR considerations are addressed. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and aligned with the organization's mission, though improvements in security transparency and contact information could enhance trust further.

Scanned

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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 ow2.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. 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
77
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

OW2 Consortium's business model centers on fostering open source software development and adoption through community governance, project incubation, and ecosystem support. The organization benefits from a diverse membership base including industry leaders, SMEs, and academics, which strengthens its market presence. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, sponsorships, and event hosting. The partnership ecosystem includes recognized entities such as NLnet and XWiki, enhancing credibility. Growth indicators include active project submissions, market readiness assessments, and regular events like OW2con. Strategic observations highlight OW2's role as a key facilitator in European open source initiatives and collaborative R&D projects, positioning it as a vital player in the open source technology sector.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate to good security maturity level with mandatory HTTPS in place and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security robustness. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response information, which could hinder effective vulnerability management and user trust. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file indicates limited formalized security communication channels. Compliance with GDPR is suggested by the presence of privacy and cookie policies, but explicit data protection officer contact details are missing. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a community website but would benefit from enhanced transparency and formal security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and contributors to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and provide a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and remediation of security issues.
  4. Enhance contact information by including dedicated security and support email addresses to improve communication channels.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and dependencies to mitigate risks from known vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
OW2 Consortium
Description
OW2 is an independent, non-profit community organisation dedicated to promoting industry-grade open source software for corporate information systems and to fostering their business ecosystems.
Key services
Open source project hosting and incubation, Community support and governance, Market Readiness Levels project assessment, Collaborative R&D project support, Events and webinars
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
XWiki 16.10.8, jQuery 3.7.1, Bootstrap 3, RequireJS, Blueimp Gallery, Moment.js, Scriptaculous, Selectize.js, Matomo Analytics
Frameworks
XWiki
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of secure cookies (implied by HTTPS)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Marketing tools
Matomo Analytics
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 rich content and navigation
  2. No WHOIS data available from raw output, indicating privacy protection or query failure
  3. Strong presence of open source community governance and project support
  4. Use of XWiki CMS platform with modern JavaScript libraries
  5. Matomo analytics used for privacy-respecting tracking
  6. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on homepage
  7. Privacy and cookie policies are present and accessible
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response information found
  9. No terms of service page clearly identified
  10. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages the XWiki CMS platform version 16.10.8, integrating a modern JavaScript stack including jQuery 3.7.1, Bootstrap 3, RequireJS, and Blueimp Gallery for UI components. Hosting is provided by Ikoula, a reputable provider. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. The use of Matomo analytics reflects a commitment to privacy-conscious data collection. Technical debt appears low, but opportunities exist to modernize some libraries and enhance security configurations. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's community-driven objectives effectively.
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 ow2.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 ow2.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.