Skip to main content

Security report for pixhawk.org

Dronecode Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Pixhawk.org is the official website for the Pixhawk open standards project, governed by the Dronecode Foundation. The site provides comprehensive open hardware standards for drone systems, focusing on autopilot, payload, and smart battery components. It serves a global community of drone developers and industry leaders, positioning itself as the de facto standard for drone hardware interoperability. The business model revolves around open standards development and fostering an ecosystem of interoperable drone products. The website content is professional, well-structured, and targets developers, manufacturers, and industry stakeholders.

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

10 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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching pixhawk.org

This scan found 28 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
30
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
56

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 pixhawk.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
15
Employees
0
Customers
15
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

1 subdomain 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 pixhawk.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

Pixhawk benefits from strong industry partnerships with companies like Auterion and NXP, enhancing its credibility and market reach. The project has a decade-long history originating from ETH Zurich and has evolved into a widely adopted open-source standard. The community-driven approach reduces R&D overheads for adopters and accelerates time to market. The website promotes community engagement through forums, Discord, and mailing lists, indicating a vibrant ecosystem. The business operates in the technology sector with a medium-sized footprint and a focus on open-source collaboration.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place, indicating a baseline security posture. However, it lacks DNSSEC, security headers, and explicit security or incident response policies. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, which may pose compliance risks especially under GDPR. The site uses standard WordPress technologies with common plugins, which if not regularly updated, could introduce vulnerabilities. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with better policy disclosures and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and incident response.
  5. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and data protection inquiries to build trust and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Dronecode Foundation
Description
Pixhawk provides open standards for drone hardware, offering hardware specifications and guidelines for drone systems development. It is an open-source project with a decade of history and a fast-growing community, created by industry leaders and supported by a global end-user and developer community.
Key services
Open hardware standards for autopilot, payload, and smart battery, Community engagement and governance, Reference designs and interoperability guidelines
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Yoast SEO, jQuery, Jetpack
Frameworks
WordPress CMS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Jetpack Stats
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Jetpack Stats (stats.wp.com), WordPress.com pixel
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO, Jetpack
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 no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is focused on open standards for drone hardware and community participation.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers visible on the homepage.
  5. Social media presence includes Twitter and LinkedIn for Dronecode Foundation.
  6. Technical stack is standard WordPress with Divi theme and common plugins.
  7. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information publicly available.
  9. Good branding consistency and professional design.
  10. No advertising networks detected beyond Jetpack and WordPress.com tracking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme, supported by plugins like Yoast SEO and Jetpack. It uses jQuery and standard web fonts from Google Fonts. The hosting appears to be managed via Name.com with multiple authoritative nameservers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Accessibility is basic but could be enhanced. The site uses tracking pixels from Jetpack and WordPress.com but maintains minimal user tracking. The technical stack is modern and widely supported but would benefit from additional security hardening and performance tuning.
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 pixhawk.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 pixhawk.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.