Skip to main content

Security report for publicaccountability.org

The Center for Public Integrity · Media · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Accountability Project is a non-profit investigative journalism platform operated by The Center for Public Integrity. It provides a powerful search tool for over 1.9 billion public records, supporting journalists and researchers in uncovering accountability stories. The project is grant-funded and partners with reputable foundations and investigative organizations, positioning it as a trusted resource in the media sector. Technically, the website uses standard web technologies with Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, and is hosted with a registrar that provides privacy protection. The site is accessible, mobile-optimized, and professionally designed, though it lacks some advanced technical frameworks and CMS indications. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is credible and functional but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security practices.

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

7 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 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

    • 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 publicaccountability.org

This scan found 25 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
62
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
63

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 Accountability Project occupies a niche in the investigative media space, leveraging large public datasets to empower journalists. Its business model relies on grants and donations, with strong partnerships enhancing credibility and reach. The target audience is specialized, focusing on investigative reporters and researchers. The project demonstrates stable growth since its 2017 founding and maintains a consistent brand identity. Its partnership ecosystem includes major foundations and investigative organizations, which supports sustainability and trust. Revenue streams are primarily philanthropic, with no commercial advertising detected. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its extensive data aggregation and user-friendly search tools.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly implemented, and domain registration includes client transfer prohibitions to prevent unauthorized transfers. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents gaps that could be exploited. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, which limits transparency and readiness. The use of Google Analytics introduces moderate user tracking, but no cookie consent mechanism is present, raising compliance concerns. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-commercial media site but requires improvements to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
  4. Add a security policy page including incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure guidelines.
  5. Improve accessibility features to meet WCAG standards and enhance user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Center for Public Integrity
Description
The Accountability Project (TAP) provides researchers and journalists a tool to search across more than 1.9 billion public records, supporting investigative journalism and public accountability.
Key services
Name Search, Dataset Search, Browse Datasets, Data access for investigative journalism
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

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. No explicit privacy or cookie policy found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. Terms of Service page is present and linked in footer.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on main page.
  5. Website uses Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. Domain uses privacy protection service but is consistent with business type.
  8. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a minor security weakness.
  9. No explicit security headers detected in HTML content.
  10. Website content is relevant and professionally presented.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a straightforward technology stack with HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, including Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking. No advanced frameworks or CMS platforms are detected, suggesting a custom or lightweight implementation. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic. The domain is registered with privacy protection via NameCheap, and DNS is managed through registrar servers without DNSSEC. The site lacks modern security headers and explicit meta tags for SEO beyond basic viewport and charset settings. Overall, the technical infrastructure is stable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 publicaccountability.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 publicaccountability.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.