Software Freedom Law Center · Other · N/a
Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.
The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) is a non-profit organization providing pro-bono legal services to developers and communities involved in Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS). Established in 2002, SFLC has a long-standing presence in the legal support of FOSS projects, including notable clients such as the Free Software Foundation and Linux Foundation. The website reflects this mission with content focused on legal representation, code of conduct mediation, and advocacy for open source software rights. The target audience primarily consists of FOSS developers and related non-profit organizations. Technically, the website is built on a custom or static platform using older technologies such as jQuery 1.4.3. The site is accessible and moderately optimized but lacks modern performance and accessibility features. There is no evidence of advanced CMS or frameworks, and SEO and mobile optimization are basic. The domain is registered with Gandi SAS since 2002, indicating a stable and legitimate digital presence. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS (implied by domain status and modern standards), but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, and uses an outdated JavaScript library, which could expose it to vulnerabilities. No cookie consent or comprehensive privacy compliance mechanisms are present, though a basic privacy policy exists. Contact is primarily via a contact form, with no direct emails or phone numbers visible. No incident response or security policies are published. Overall, SFLC's website is trustworthy and professional but could benefit from technical modernization, enhanced security practices, and improved privacy compliance to better serve its community and protect its digital assets.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
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
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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention softwarefreedom.org, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for softwarefreedom.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with softwarefreedom.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review softwarefreedom.org.