Skip to main content

Security report for rednoses.org

RED NOSES International · Non-profit · Austria

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

RED NOSES International is a well-established non-profit organization founded in 1994, specializing in healthcare clowning and humanitarian aid to vulnerable populations including sick children, seniors, and disabled individuals. The organization operates in 11 countries with a medium-sized footprint and offers key services such as crisis response missions, advocacy, training, and research. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence with comprehensive content and clear navigation. Technically, the site is built on TYPO3 CMS with modern libraries like Bootstrap and jQuery, and integrates analytics and donation tools effectively. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though some security headers and incident response information are absent. WHOIS data is unavailable, which slightly impacts trust but the overall digital maturity and compliance with GDPR are positive. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing incident response contacts, and adding a vulnerability disclosure policy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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 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';…

  2. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching rednoses.org

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
58

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 organization holds a strong market position in the non-profit healthcare and humanitarian sector, leveraging partnerships and subsidiaries across Europe and the Middle East. Its business model focuses on delivering social impact through artistic healthcare interventions and crisis response. Revenue streams likely include donations facilitated via integrated FundraiseUp widgets. The target audience includes donors, healthcare institutions, and vulnerable populations. The website supports growth and engagement through newsletters, social media, and research dissemination. The partnership ecosystem includes international NGOs and local organizations, enhancing credibility and reach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent compliance, and use of reputable analytics and marketing tools. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of a published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policy represent gaps. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The organization should consider formalizing incident response contacts and security disclosure mechanisms to improve transparency and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish an incident response page with clear security contact information.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries for vulnerabilities and update accordingly.
  5. Enhance WHOIS data availability or use verified domain registration to improve trust signals.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
RED NOSES International
Description
RED NOSES is a non-profit organisation, bringing humour & laughter to people in need of joy since 1994. They develop specific formats for sick children, senior patients, multiply disabled children, rehabilitation patients, and people in vulnerable situations.
Key services
Healthcare clowning, Crisis response missions, Advocacy and training, Research and evaluation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
TYPO3 CMS, jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (GA4), Facebook Pixel, FundraiseUp donation widget, eyeAble accessibility tools
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of deferred loading for scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (GA4), Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (GA4), Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel, FundraiseUp
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed non-profit organization site
  2. Strong focus on healthcare clowning and humanitarian aid
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy mechanisms implemented
  4. Multiple social media channels linked
  5. Donation functionality integrated via FundraiseUp
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain trust verification
  7. No explicit security.txt or incident response information found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on TYPO3 CMS, utilizing modern front-end frameworks such as Bootstrap and jQuery, ensuring responsive and accessible design. Integration of Google Analytics (GA4), Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and FundraiseUp donation widgets indicates a mature digital marketing and fundraising infrastructure. Performance is moderate with deferred script loading and optimized images. Accessibility is supported by eyeAble tools. The site has good SEO practices with meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and incident response readiness.
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 rednoses.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 rednoses.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.