Skip to main content

Security report for rwnfoundation.org

Ronald W. Naito MD Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Ronald W. Naito MD Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to continuing the legacy of Dr. Ron Naito by providing grants to nonprofit organizations focused on healing communities and the planet. Their key funding areas include climate, health equity, sustainable communities, and Oregon arts and culture. The foundation targets nonprofit organizations and donors interested in social and environmental causes, positioning itself as a regional philanthropic entity with a clear mission and community focus. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the TwentyTwenty theme and Genesis Blocks plugin, leveraging jQuery and standard web technologies. The site is moderately performant, mobile-optimized, and has basic accessibility features. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. No WHOIS data is available due to privacy protection, which is typical for nonprofits. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and serves its audience well, though improvements in privacy compliance and security headers are recommended.

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

10 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 rwnfoundation.org

This scan found 27 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
15
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
56

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 foundation operates in the nonprofit sector with a focus on grantmaking to support community and environmental initiatives. Its business model revolves around philanthropic funding rather than commercial revenue. The website content and structure indicate a small-sized organization with a consistent brand and clear mission. The foundation maintains active social media channels on Facebook and Instagram, enhancing community engagement. The lack of detailed WHOIS data is offset by the professional presentation and contact information. There is no evidence of commercial partnerships or subsidiaries. The foundation's market position is stable within its niche, with potential for growth through expanded grant programs and outreach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly implemented, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No forms or input fields are present on the homepage, minimizing attack surface. There is no visible vulnerability disclosure or incident response information, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy-related page found but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a nonprofit informational site but could benefit from enhancements to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement essential security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations such as GDPR.
  3. Publish clear and accessible privacy policy and terms of service documents to improve transparency and legal compliance.
  4. Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards and improve user experience for all visitors.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ronald W. Naito MD Foundation
Description
The Ronald W. Naito MD Foundation continues Dr. Ron Naito’s legacy of compassionate healing by supporting nonprofit organizations that strengthen, protect, and transform communities and the planet. The foundation focuses on grants in climate, health equity, sustainable communities, and Oregon arts & culture.
Key services
Grant funding, Community support, Philanthropic initiatives
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, WordPress, Genesis Blocks plugin
Frameworks
WordPress TwentyTwenty theme, Genesis Blocks
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

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. Content is well-structured and relevant to a nonprofit foundation.
  3. No forms detected on the homepage; contact is via email link.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners found.
  5. Social media presence on Facebook and Instagram is active.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  8. No phone numbers explicitly labeled as contact found.
  9. No terms of service page detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using the TwentyTwenty theme and Genesis Blocks plugin, indicating a standard and maintainable infrastructure. It uses jQuery and standard web fonts, with responsive design elements for mobile optimization. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected in the HTML structure or resource loading. The site lacks advanced SEO structured data such as JSON-LD or Open Graph tags beyond basic meta tags. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, suggesting minimal user tracking. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. Overall, the technical implementation is solid for a nonprofit website but could be enhanced with improved SEO metadata, analytics integration, and security hardening.
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 rwnfoundation.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 rwnfoundation.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.