Skip to main content

Security report for partnershiponai.org

Partnership on AI · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Partnership on AI is a US-based non-profit organization founded in 2016 that brings together diverse stakeholders from the AI community including technology companies, civil society, and academia. The organization focuses on collaborative research, developing industry guidelines, hosting international forums, and educating policymakers to promote ethical and responsible AI development. Their market position is strong as a multi-stakeholder convener supported by major technology companies such as Apple, Amazon, Meta, Google/DeepMind, IBM, and Microsoft. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and analytics tools, including Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The site is moderately performant, mobile-optimized, and accessible at a basic level. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, though improvements such as enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers are recommended. No critical vulnerabilities or blocking mechanisms were detected. Overall, the website demonstrates a professional and trustworthy presence aligned with its mission and audience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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. 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 partnershiponai.org

This scan found 24 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
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

The Partnership on AI operates as a non-profit entity focused on AI ethics and safety, leveraging a collaborative business model that includes research partnerships, policy influence, and community engagement. Their revenue streams likely include grants and donations from major tech companies and supporters. The target audience includes AI developers, policymakers, researchers, and civil society organizations. The organization maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with leading technology firms and civil society groups, enhancing its influence and credibility. Growth indicators include ongoing resource development, international convenings, and active partner engagement. The website content and testimonials reinforce the organization's role as a trusted convener and thought leader in AI ethics.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enabled and a robust cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents areas for enhancement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The lack of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency in security governance. Overall, the security maturity is good for a non-profit organization but could be improved to align with best practices for data protection and incident management.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Consider creating and publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet higher standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Partnership on AI
Description
Bringing together diverse voices from across the AI Community
Key services
Research collaborations, International convenings & forums, Developing industry guidelines, Educating public policymakers
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Google Maps API, Just Validate JS
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data found in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained non-profit organization site focused on AI ethics and collaboration
  2. Content is rich with resources, partner testimonials, and organizational information
  3. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot with detailed cookie disclosures
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in provided content
  5. Contact information is primarily via contact forms; no explicit emails or phone numbers found
  6. Security posture is good but could be improved with additional headers and DNSSEC
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  8. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices evident
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin for search engine optimization, Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing tag management, and Cookiebot for cookie consent compliance. External resources include CDNJS for JavaScript libraries, Google Maps API for map integration, and Just Validate for form validation. Hosting is managed via Squarespace Domains with DNS hosted on Google Cloud DNS. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility. The site uses modern web standards and includes structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO. Technical risks are minimal but include the lack of DNSSEC and some missing security headers. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission effectively with room for security and accessibility improvements.
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 partnershiponai.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 partnershiponai.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.