Skip to main content

Security report for sfareportcard.com

Streets For All · Transportation · United States

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

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Streets For All operates as a focused non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to advancing sustainable and equitable transportation policies in California. Their website serves as a comprehensive platform to assess and report on the performance of state legislators regarding transportation legislation, providing transparency and accountability to the public and stakeholders. The organization positions itself as a key influencer in California's transportation policy landscape, emphasizing legislative sponsorship, support, and public engagement. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including React and Material-UI, hosted on DigitalOcean infrastructure. While the site offers rich content and a professional design, performance issues such as slow load times and lack of some security headers are noted. The site uses Umami for privacy-focused analytics, indicating a moderate approach to user tracking. From a security perspective, the site benefits from a valid SSL certificate but lacks advanced security headers and DNS protections like DNSSEC and DMARC. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies and no visible consent mechanisms. Contact information is limited to an email address, with no phone or physical address provided. Overall, the website is a credible and professional resource for transportation policy advocacy but would benefit from enhanced security practices and privacy compliance to strengthen trust and protect users. Performance optimizations and clearer privacy disclosures are recommended to improve user experience and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching sfareportcard.com

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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
55

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

Streets For All occupies a niche within the California transportation advocacy sector, leveraging legislative tracking and policy sponsorship to influence state transportation and land use laws. Their business model centers on non-profit advocacy, engaging policymakers, advocates, and the public through detailed report cards and case studies. The organization demonstrates strong content expertise and a clear mission to shift California's transportation policies toward sustainability and equity. The website's detailed legislative data and scoring methodology provide transparency and empower stakeholders to hold legislators accountable. The presence of partnerships or related domains is not evident, suggesting a focused operational scope. Growth indicators include active legislative sponsorship and public engagement through the website. Strategically, Streets For All could expand its impact by enhancing digital infrastructure, improving privacy and security compliance, and broadening contact channels. Their current market position is that of a specialized advocacy group with a strong informational platform but limited digital maturity in privacy and security domains.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with a valid SSL certificate ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of critical security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. The lack of DNSSEC and DMARC records further exposes the domain to DNS spoofing and email phishing risks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The site does not appear to implement advanced incident response or security policies publicly. Privacy compliance is weak, with no visible privacy or cookie policies, which may expose the organization to regulatory risks under GDPR or similar frameworks. Overall, the security maturity is low to moderate, with significant room for improvement in headers, DNS security, and privacy compliance to reduce risk and enhance user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
  3. Configure DMARC and DNSSEC for the domain to improve email and DNS security.
  4. Optimize website performance by reducing resource count and improving load times.
  5. Expand contact information to include phone numbers and physical addresses to enhance business credibility and user trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React and Material-UI, indicating a modern frontend framework with responsive design capabilities. Hosting is provided by DigitalOcean, as inferred from DNS records. The site uses Typekit for fonts and Umami for privacy-focused analytics. Performance is suboptimal with a load time exceeding 12 seconds and a high number of resources (136), suggesting potential technical debt or unoptimized assets. Accessibility features appear basic, with some semantic HTML elements but no explicit ARIA landmarks detected. SEO optimization is basic, with standard meta tags but no Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data found. The absence of structured data limits rich search engine results and discoverability. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires optimization in performance, accessibility, and SEO to improve user experience and search visibility.
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 sfareportcard.com. 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 sfareportcard.com.

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.