Skip to main content

Security report for savingplaces.org

National Trust for Historic Preservation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The National Trust for Historic Preservation operates savingplaces.org as a digital platform to promote historic preservation across the United States. The organization is a well-established non-profit with a large presence and a broad target audience including donors, preservation professionals, and the general public interested in heritage conservation. The website offers extensive resources, advocacy tools, and calls to action for donations and memberships, reflecting a mature business model reliant on community support and grants. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Bing Ads for analytics and marketing, and appears to be built on a Ruby on Rails framework. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, though performance is moderate. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and CSRF protections in place, but lacks visible security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is partial with a cookie consent mechanism but no explicit privacy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content. Overall, the domain registration is privacy protected but consistent with the organization's profile and history, indicating legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 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 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

  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 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

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

Keep watching savingplaces.org

This scan found 22 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
60
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
Average
64

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention savingplaces.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
10
Employees
0
Customers
9
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
0%

3 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for savingplaces.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The National Trust holds a leading position in the historic preservation non-profit sector in the US, leveraging a strong brand and extensive network. Revenue streams include donations, memberships, grants, and planned giving. The website supports these streams with clear donation and membership pathways. Partnerships such as Main Street America are highlighted, indicating a collaborative ecosystem. The organization targets a diverse audience including preservation advocates, community leaders, and the general public. The site content and navigation support educational outreach and community engagement, reinforcing the Trust's mission and market position.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and CSRF tokens, but lacks explicit security headers and published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. No contact emails or phone numbers for security or general inquiries were found, which may hinder incident reporting. The use of multiple third-party analytics and advertising scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. The absence of DNSSEC is a minor concern. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by publishing security policies, adding security headers, and enabling DNSSEC.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the homepage.
  2. Add explicit contact information including security incident response contacts.
  3. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  4. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security.
  5. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Description
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization dedicated to saving historic buildings, monuments, communities, and landscapes designated as National Treasures.
Key services
Grant Programs, National Preservation Awards, National Trust Historic Sites, Preservation Conferences, Advocacy and Action Center, Historic Tax Credits, Preservation Leadership Forums
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Bing Ads, StackAdapt, Wisepops, Web Vitals
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF tokens present in meta tags
  • Client-side consent banner for cookies

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Bing Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
StackAdapt, Bing Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Bing Ads
Marketing tools
Wisepops
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is rich and relevant to historic preservation.
  3. Strong calls to action for donations, membership, and advocacy.
  4. Use of multiple analytics and advertising/tracking services.
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in provided HTML.
  6. Cookie consent mechanism is present and active.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  8. Domain uses privacy protection service, which is common for non-profits.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern tech stack with Ruby on Rails backend and uses multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible with good SEO practices. Hosting is likely via GoDaddy given the nameservers. Performance is moderate, possibly due to multiple external scripts. The site uses SVG logos and responsive images for quality branding. There is technical debt in the lack of security headers and incomplete privacy documentation. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission but could benefit from security and privacy enhancements.
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 savingplaces.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 savingplaces.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.