Skip to main content

Security report for projectliberty.io

Project Liberty · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Project Liberty is a technology-focused organization dedicated to empowering individuals to reclaim control over their digital lives through innovative solutions, policy advocacy, and alliance building. The website presents a well-structured and content-rich platform highlighting their Labs, Institute, Alliance, and campaigns such as The People's Bid for TikTok. Their market position is that of a leader in the digital rights and decentralized internet space, targeting users and stakeholders interested in data privacy and internet governance. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern tools like HubSpot forms and Matomo analytics, but suffers from slow performance and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security and user trust. The security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS, lack of security headers, and disabled TLS protocols, posing significant risks. Privacy compliance is strong with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent security improvements to protect users and enhance credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

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 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching projectliberty.io

This scan found 18 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
74

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

Project Liberty operates as a medium-sized entity in the technology sector, focusing on building a people-powered internet ecosystem. Their business model combines technology development, policy research, and coalition building with partners like McCourt Global and The People's Bid. The organization leverages partnerships and alliances to extend its influence and impact. Revenue streams likely include grants, donations, and consortium funding. The target audience includes technologists, policymakers, civil society, and privacy-conscious internet users. Growth indicators include active campaigns, regular news updates, and a strong social media presence. The partnership ecosystem is robust, linking to related initiatives and organizations. Strategic observations suggest a focus on long-term internet governance and digital identity control, positioning Project Liberty as a key player in shaping future internet policies and technologies.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of Project Liberty's website is low due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, which are critical for secure communications. The lack of HTTP security headers further weakens the site's defense against common web attacks. While SPF and DMARC records are properly configured, indicating good email security practices, the website itself exposes users to risks such as data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. There is no evidence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are important for compliance and trust. The privacy policy and cookie consent mechanisms demonstrate awareness of GDPR requirements, but technical security gaps undermine overall data protection. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not visible from the site content. Immediate remediation is necessary to elevate the security posture to an acceptable level.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user data in transit.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable outdated or insecure versions.
  3. Implement essential HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate risks.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan to enhance transparency and preparedness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using the block editor, integrated with HubSpot for form management and Matomo for privacy-focused analytics. The hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare, providing potential for enhanced security and performance features. However, the site suffers from slow load times (over 13 seconds) and a high number of resource requests (96), indicating optimization opportunities. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical technical risks. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are well implemented, with proper meta tags, structured data, and responsive design. The technical debt includes outdated or missing security configurations and potential performance bottlenecks. Modernization efforts should focus on security hardening and performance tuning to improve user experience and trust.
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 projectliberty.io. 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 projectliberty.io.

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.