Skip to main content

Security report for rbf.org

Rockefeller Brothers Fund · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a well-established philanthropic foundation focused on advancing social change for a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. Their website clearly communicates their mission, thematic programs, grantmaking activities, and mission-aligned investing initiatives. The organization targets philanthropic partners, grantees, and social change advocates, positioning itself as a key player in the non-profit sector with a global reach. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Plausible Analytics. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, providing a professional and user-friendly experience. However, some security best practices like security headers and explicit cookie consent mechanisms could be improved. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and secure forms, with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of WHOIS data reduces transparency but does not significantly impact the trustworthiness given the strong branding and external social media presence. Overall, the site maintains a solid security posture but could enhance compliance and transparency. The overall risk assessment is low, with recommendations focusing on improving security headers, cookie consent, and publishing security policies to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

5 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

  3. 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 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 rbf.org

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
75

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 Rockefeller Brothers Fund operates as a large non-profit philanthropic entity with a focus on social change, sustainability, peacebuilding, and arts & culture. Their business model centers on grantmaking and mission-aligned investing, serving a global audience of grantees and partners. The organization benefits from a strong brand legacy and a comprehensive program portfolio. Their digital presence is mature, with multilingual support and active social media engagement. Growth indicators include program expansion and public events at the Pocantico Center. The partnership ecosystem includes a Chinese language site, indicating international outreach. Strategic observations suggest continued emphasis on transparency, impact measurement, and mission-driven investing.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, secure form handling, and no visible sensitive data leaks. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency for security researchers and users. GDPR compliance is partially addressed via a privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected. Overall, the security maturity is good but can be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Consider creating and hosting a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no privacy or security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Description
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.
Key services
Grantmaking, Mission-aligned investing
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Analytics, Hotjar, Plausible Analytics
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure forms (MailChimp subscription form with anti-bot hidden field)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Plausible Analytics
Marketing tools
MailChimp
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and clear navigation
  2. Uses modern CMS (Drupal 10) and analytics tools
  3. No signs of adult or questionable content
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed request or privacy protection
  5. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  6. Security headers not explicitly detected in HTML content
  7. Social media presence on major platforms
  8. Clear business focus on philanthropy and social change
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, ensuring a robust content management framework. It integrates multiple analytics platforms (Google Analytics, Hotjar, Plausible) for comprehensive user behavior insights. The site uses responsive design and accessibility features, providing a good user experience across devices. Performance is moderate, with optimized images and structured navigation. However, the absence of detected security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates areas for technical improvement. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available from the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission effectively but could benefit from 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 rbf.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 rbf.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.