Skip to main content

Security report for pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center · Non-profit · United States

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Pew Research Center is a well-established, nonpartisan non-profit organization specializing in public opinion polling and social science research. It serves a broad audience including the general public, policymakers, and media by providing data-driven insights on global issues, attitudes, and trends. The organization is recognized for its credibility and independence in the research sector. Technically, the website is built on a robust WordPress VIP platform, leveraging modern SEO and analytics tools, ensuring fast performance and excellent mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and cookie consent mechanisms, although there is room to improve transparency by publishing dedicated security and incident response policies. Overall, the site reflects a mature digital presence consistent with a reputable research institution.

Scanned

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

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 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
    • 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 pewresearch.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
52
Security headers
30
Email security
82
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
72

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 pewresearch.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,079
Employees
0
Customers
2,019
Third parties
60
Weak passwords
8%

5 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for pewresearch.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The Pew Research Center holds a leading position in the non-profit research sector, distinguished by its nonpartisan approach and comprehensive data services. Its business model focuses on providing free access to research outputs, funded through grants and donations. The center targets a wide range of stakeholders, including academics, journalists, and policymakers. Its digital ecosystem includes partnerships with major social media platforms for outreach and uses advanced analytics for audience insights. The organization's growth is supported by its trusted brand and consistent content quality, with no indications of suspicious or fraudulent activity.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a high level of security maturity with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and a cookie consent framework compliant with GDPR. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a public security policy, incident response contact, and vulnerability disclosure program suggests potential gaps in transparency and readiness. These gaps do not currently pose direct risks but represent areas for strategic improvement to enhance stakeholder trust and compliance with emerging regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a clear and accessible security policy outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Establish and publicize an incident response contact channel to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Provide contact information for a Data Protection Officer or privacy lead to strengthen GDPR compliance.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to mitigate potential security risks.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Pew Research Center
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Pew Research Center
Description
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.
Key services
Public opinion polling, Social science research, Data analysis and reports
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress VIP, Yoast SEO Premium, CookiePro, Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, FacetWP
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress VIP hosting
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Crazy Egg, Parsely
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Crazy Egg
Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager), Parsely
Marketing tools
Crazy Egg
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is rich, professional, and well-structured.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. No direct registrant WHOIS data available, likely privacy protected.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  6. No security policy or incident response page publicly found.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt detected.
  8. Social media presence is strong and consistent with brand.
  9. No suspicious or malicious external domains detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress VIP, a high-quality managed hosting platform optimized for performance and security. It uses modern technologies including Yoast SEO for search optimization, CookiePro for consent management, and Google Tag Manager for analytics deployment. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is fast with efficient resource loading and minimal blocking scripts. The technical stack is well-maintained, though continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies is recommended to avoid technical debt and security vulnerabilities.
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. 72/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with pewresearch.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 pewresearch.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.