Skip to main content

Security report for simpleplanfoundation.org

Simple Plan Foundation · Non-profit · Canada

Medium risk. 6 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 Simple Plan Foundation website represents a small non-profit organization established in 2005 by the band Simple Plan to support young people in need and victims of life-threatening illnesses. The foundation operates primarily in Canada and targets youth and charitable supporters. The website is built on the Squarespace platform, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile-optimized with good design quality and clear navigation, though it lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which impacts privacy compliance scores. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and HSTS enabled, but additional security headers could enhance protection. The absence of public WHOIS data suggests privacy protection, which is reasonable for a non-profit entity. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could improve transparency and compliance documentation.

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

6 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 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching simpleplanfoundation.org

This scan found 26 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
45
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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 simpleplanfoundation.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for simpleplanfoundation.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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 niche market within the non-profit sector, leveraging the brand recognition of the band Simple Plan. Its business model focuses on charitable aid and youth support, with key services including financial and emotional support for young people facing hardships. The website's integration with social media platforms supports community engagement and outreach. Revenue streams likely include donations and fundraising events, though these are not detailed on the site. The foundation's small size and focused mission suggest a targeted operational scope. The lack of detailed business or financial disclosures limits deeper business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with enforced HTTPS and HSTS, reducing risks of man-in-the-middle attacks. The use of third-party scripts like Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel introduces moderate tracking but no evident vulnerabilities. The absence of explicit security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates room for improvement in security governance and transparency. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit informational site but would benefit from enhanced security headers and documented policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent banner to improve privacy compliance.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security-related inquiries.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and integrations to minimize tracking and potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Simple Plan Foundation
Description
It was in Montreal, on December 2005, at Simple Plan’s first Bell Center show, when the band announced the creation of the Simple Plan Foundation. The foundation’s aim is to help young people in need, by easing their difficult passage to adulthood and by supporting the victims of life threatening illnesses.
Key services
support for young people in need, aid for victims of life threatening illnesses
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Squarespace, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Typekit fonts, Google Fonts
Platforms
Squarespace
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • HSTS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Squarespace platform with standard third-party integrations.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on main page.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  4. Social media presence is established with official Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram links.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. WHOIS data is not publicly available, limiting domain trust verification.
  7. HTTPS and HSTS are properly configured, enhancing security posture.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Squarespace, a reputable platform providing managed hosting and CMS capabilities. It uses modern web fonts from Typekit and Google Fonts, and integrates Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site is responsive and optimized for mobile devices with good SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Performance is moderate, typical for a CMS-based site with multiple external resources. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is no evidence of technical debt or outdated libraries in the visible source. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and privacy features 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 simpleplanfoundation.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 simpleplanfoundation.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.