Skip to main content

Security report for sla.org

Sla · Non-profit organization management · United states

Partial score · DNS & email only

50/100

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

Scanned

5 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
2of 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 in the checks that completed. Fix these first.

  1. 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

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

Keep watching sla.org

Only DNS and email could be checked this time. Monitoring re-checks every day and emails you when something material changes.

Daily monitoring

€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.

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

GDPR outside view
50
Average
50

Not counted

  • SSL/TLS: did not complete in this scan.
  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • Email security: did not complete in this scan.
  • DNS health: did not complete in this scan.
  • Network security: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Based on WHOIS data, SLA is an established organization likely operating as a non-profit entity in the US. The domain age supports a long operational history. Due to blocked content, no direct insights into market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships are available. The presence of bot mitigation suggests concern for automated abuse or scraping. The organization should ensure public-facing content is accessible and enriched with business information to improve credibility and user engagement.

Security posture

The current security posture is difficult to assess fully due to the WAF challenge blocking content. The domain uses clientTransferProhibited status, which is positive. DNSSEC is not enabled, representing a security gap. No security headers or HTTPS details are visible in the provided data. The use of captcha-delivery.com scripts indicates active bot mitigation. No privacy or incident response policies are found, indicating compliance gaps. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, and publishing privacy and security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Remove or configure WAF/bot protection to allow legitimate user access and content analysis.
  2. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  3. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Add clear contact information and incident response details to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Adopt security best practices including HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS, security headers, and vulnerability management.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked by a security mechanism (captcha-delivery.com) indicating a WAF or bot protection challenge page. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
SLA
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
captcha-delivery.com
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to a bot protection challenge page.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies in the provided HTML.
  3. No contact information or forms detected in the HTML content.
  4. Use of external captcha-delivery.com scripts and iframe indicates bot mitigation.
  5. WHOIS data shows a long-established domain with consistent registration details.
  6. No SEO or accessibility metadata found in the HTML.
  7. No visible business descriptive content or branding elements in the HTML snapshot.
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 sla.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 sla.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.

sla.org security report (partial scan) | Guard