Skip to main content

Security report for signresearch.org

Sign Research Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Sign Research Foundation is a small non-profit organization founded in 2015, dedicated to advancing research and education on signage to build safer, accessible, and thriving communities. It serves a diverse audience including sign manufacturers, designers, planners, and city officials. The foundation collaborates with industry associations and planners to improve sign codes and urban wayfinding. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using Elementor and Yoast SEO, with Google Analytics for tracking. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and accessible, though performance is moderate. Security posture is good with HTTPS and anonymized analytics, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Business credibility is high with clear contact information, social media presence, and trust signals such as testimonials and donation calls. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy, with room for improvement in security headers and privacy compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

8 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 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 signresearch.org

This scan found 25 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
61

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 occupies a unique niche as the sole research organization focused on signage science, technology, and regulation. Its business model is non-profit, relying on donations, grants, and partnerships with industry associations. The target market includes sign manufacturers, urban planners, architects, and city officials, positioning it as a thought leader and educational resource. The organization demonstrates strong branding consistency and engagement through social media and educational programs. Partnerships with signexpo.org and signs.org enhance its market reach. Growth indicators include active educational offerings and research grants. The foundation's operations emphasize community impact and urban development, aligning with non-profit sector goals.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced with SSL and IP anonymization in analytics, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents gaps that could be exploited. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. There is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure policy, which limits transparency in security management. Privacy compliance is partial, lacking cookie consent mechanisms and explicit GDPR indicators. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit informational site but could be enhanced to reduce risk and improve compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Add a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts.
  4. Deploy a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to ensure no vulnerable libraries are in use.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sign Research Foundation
Description
The Sign Research Foundation serves communities and the greater economy through research on the unique commercial and social value of signs. It is the only research organization advancing the science, technology, design, placement and regulation of signs. The foundation facilitates dialogue with architects, urban planners, developers and other constituencies to build stronger, safer and more successful communities.
Key services
Research on signage, Educational programs and workshops, Urban wayfinding manuals, Planning for sign code success workshops, Research grants, Philanthropy and donor engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Yoast SEO, Google Analytics (MonsterInsights plugin), jQuery, Swiper.js
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced with SSL
  • Google Analytics anonymize IP enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
MonsterInsights Google Analytics plugin
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained non-profit organization site focused on signage research and education.
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and multiple calls to action for donations and involvement.
  3. Use of modern WordPress technologies and SEO best practices.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  5. Social media presence is active and consistent with the organization's branding.
  6. No cookie consent banner or explicit GDPR compliance mechanisms detected.
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a mature and maintainable technical infrastructure. Google Fonts and Google Analytics are integrated for design and analytics needs. The site loads with moderate performance and is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features including an accessibility toolbar. The use of structured data (JSON-LD) improves SEO and content discoverability. Hosting appears to be with GoDaddy, inferred from registrar and nameservers. There is no evidence of technical debt or deprecated technologies. Opportunities exist to improve security configurations and privacy compliance to align with best practices.
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 signresearch.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 signresearch.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.