Skip to main content

Security report for slowfood.com

Slow Food Foundation · Non-profit · Italy

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Slow Food Foundation operates as a global non-profit movement dedicated to promoting good, clean, and fair food for all. The organization focuses on biodiversity defense, education, and advocacy to influence public decision-makers and the private sector. Their market position is strong within the non-profit food advocacy sector, supported by a large global community and thematic networks. The website reflects a mature digital presence with multilingual support and integration with CRM systems for contact management. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern libraries and performance optimizations, though some security headers and explicit policies could be improved. The security posture is solid with HTTPS and anti-bot measures, but lacks a dedicated security policy or incident response contact. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-optimized for its audience, though the missing WHOIS data slightly reduces domain trustworthiness.

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

5 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 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

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

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching slowfood.com

This scan found 20 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
47
Security headers
55
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
73

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 slowfood.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
8
Employees
0
Customers
8
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

2 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 slowfood.com.

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

Slow Food Foundation's business intelligence reveals a well-established global non-profit with a focus on sustainable food systems. Their business model relies on community engagement, education, advocacy, and events. The organization targets individuals, producers, cooks, companies, and institutions worldwide. Revenue streams likely include donations, grants (including EU funding), and merchandise sales via their shop. The partnership ecosystem includes thematic networks and local communities. Growth indicators include active campaigns, events, and a strong social media presence. Strategic observations suggest the organization could enhance transparency by publishing more detailed security and compliance policies.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced, use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of security headers like Content Security Policy and lack of a public security policy or incident response contact are gaps. No known vulnerabilities or malware were detected. Compliance with GDPR is indicated by comprehensive privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness is unclear due to missing contact channels. The security culture appears moderate but could benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
  5. Optimize website performance further to improve load times and mobile responsiveness.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Slow Food Foundation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Slow Food Foundation
Description
Slow Food is a global movement acting together to ensure good, clean and fair food for all.
Key services
Biodiversity defense, Education and mobilization, Advocacy influencing public and private sectors, Community building, Events and campaigns
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, jQuery, GSAP, Swiper.js, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Google reCAPTCHA, WPML (multilingual plugin), WP Rocket (performance plugin)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Content Security Policy not detected (unknown)
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed WordPress site for a global non-profit food advocacy organization.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and multilingual support is present.
  3. Multiple social media channels are linked and active.
  4. Contact form integrates with Salesforce CRM.
  5. No signs of malware or phishing detected.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response page found.
  7. WHOIS data is missing or not publicly available, which reduces trust slightly.
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present and appear comprehensive.
  9. No phone numbers explicitly labeled as company contact found.
  10. No terms of service page detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, GSAP for animations, Swiper.js for sliders, and integration with Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. Multilingual support is provided by WPML. Performance optimization is handled by WP Rocket. The site uses Salesforce WebToLead forms for contact management. While the infrastructure is solid and uses widely adopted technologies, there is room for improvement in security headers and accessibility compliance. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional and engaging user experience.
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 slowfood.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 slowfood.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.