Skip to main content

Security report for prism-break.org

Private by Design, LLC · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

PRISM Break is a privacy advocacy website operated by Private by Design, LLC, focused on helping users opt out of global data surveillance programs by recommending privacy-respecting software alternatives. The site targets privacy-conscious users seeking to encrypt communications and reduce reliance on proprietary services. It maintains a niche position in the privacy technology sector with a small organizational footprint and a mission-driven business model. Technically, the website uses standard HTML5 and CSS with FontAwesome icons, is mobile optimized, and provides clear navigation and content relevant to its audience. However, it lacks advanced security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which limits its security posture and privacy compliance. The domain is well-established since 2013, registered transparently without privacy protection, aligning with the organization's advocacy goals. Overall, the site is trustworthy but could improve in formalizing privacy and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 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 prism-break.org

This scan found 22 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
95
Security headers
25
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
64

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 website operates as a non-profit or advocacy platform promoting privacy tools and software. Its competitive advantage lies in its curated list of privacy-respecting projects and open-source ethos. Revenue streams appear limited to donations, such as Bitcoin contributions. The target audience includes privacy-aware internet users globally. The project is supported by a small team or individual, with no parent or subsidiary companies identified. The partnership ecosystem includes open-source communities and platforms like GitLab. Growth indicators are modest, focusing on community engagement rather than commercial expansion. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to enhance trust through formal policies and improved security measures.

Security posture

The current security maturity is basic. The website uses HTTPS (implied by domain and modern web standards) but lacks DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security. No forms or data collection points reduce attack surface, but absence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response information limits transparency. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries detected. Compliance with GDPR or other regulations is not demonstrated through policies. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are minimal. The site would benefit from adopting security best practices and publishing relevant policies to improve user trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve transparency and GDPR compliance.
  3. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website against common attacks.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Provide clear contact information for security and general inquiries to enhance trust and communication.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Private by Design, LLC
Description
Opt out of global data surveillance programs like PRISM, XKeyscore and Tempora. Help make mass surveillance of entire populations uneconomical! We all have a right to privacy, which you can exercise today by encrypting your communications and ending your reliance on proprietary services.
Key services
Listing privacy-respecting software projects, Providing information on privacy tools for multiple platforms
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, FontAwesome
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • No forms collecting sensitive data detected
  • No exposed credentials or sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the main page.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. No forms detected on the homepage; no data collection observed.
  5. Content is focused on privacy advocacy and recommending privacy-respecting software.
  6. Website uses basic modern web technologies and is mobile optimized.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in the provided HTML.
  8. External links mostly point to Wikipedia and GitLab repositories related to the project.
  9. Bitcoin donation link provided as a funding mechanism.
  10. No security headers or advanced security configurations visible in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard HTML5 and CSS, using FontAwesome for icons. It is mobile optimized and has a clear navigation structure. No CMS or advanced frameworks detected, indicating a lightweight and simple technical stack. Hosting provider details are limited to registrar information (Porkbun LLC). Performance is moderate with no obvious technical debt or errors in the provided HTML. SEO is supported by meta description and viewport tags. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with ARIA roles and semantic HTML enhancements. No analytics or tracking scripts were found, aligning with privacy goals. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but minimalistic, suitable for the website's advocacy purpose.
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 prism-break.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 prism-break.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.