Skip to main content

Security report for streetsforallsf.org

Streets For All San Francisco · Transportation · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Streets For All San Francisco is a small non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to improving transportation safety and public space in San Francisco. Their website serves as a platform for community engagement, initiatives, events, and fundraising. The organization positions itself as a local leader in advocating for safer, greener streets and better transit options. Technically, the website is built on Squarespace, leveraging standard web technologies and third-party services such as Mailchimp for email marketing and ActBlue for donations. While the site is visually consistent and user-friendly, performance is somewhat slow and SEO/accessibility features are basic. Security posture is adequate with modern TLS protocols and no known SSL vulnerabilities, but lacks advanced security headers, DNS protections, and privacy compliance mechanisms. Contact information is limited to an email address and social media links, with no phone or physical address provided. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy policies, security hardening, and performance optimization.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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. 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 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 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 streetsforallsf.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. See sample alerts.

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
45
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
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

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The organization operates in the transportation and non-profit sectors, focusing on urban safety and community advocacy. Their business model relies on community involvement, memberships, donations, and public campaigns. The presence of sister domains and partnerships with payment processors like ActBlue indicates a structured fundraising approach. The target audience is local residents and activists interested in urban mobility and safety. The website's content and navigation support engagement and conversion, though lack of privacy and cookie policies may impact trust. The organization maintains active social media channels to broaden outreach. Growth potential lies in expanding membership and public awareness through digital channels.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and strong TLS cipher suites. However, it lacks critical security headers such as HSTS, DNSSEC, DMARC, and CAA records, which are important for preventing common attacks and ensuring email security. The absence of OCSP stapling reduces certificate revocation efficiency. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, indicating limited transparency in security management. The site does not implement cookie consent mechanisms or privacy policies, which are compliance gaps under GDPR and related regulations. Overall, the security posture is functional but could be significantly improved to reduce risk and enhance user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect DNS integrity and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add DMARC, SPF, and DKIM records to improve email authentication and reduce phishing risks.
  4. Enable OCSP stapling on the SSL certificate to improve certificate revocation checking performance.
  5. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  6. Add a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  7. Optimize website performance by reducing page size and load time.
  8. Enhance accessibility features and SEO metadata for better user experience and search ranking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Squarespace, a managed CMS platform, using standard web technologies including JavaScript, Typekit fonts, and third-party integrations like Mailchimp and Weglot for multilingual support. The site uses modern TLS protocols (1.3 and 1.2) with a strong cipher suite but lacks advanced security configurations such as HSTS and DNSSEC. Performance metrics indicate a slow load time (6300ms) and a large page size (~1MB), suggesting potential optimization opportunities. The site is mobile optimized with good navigation clarity and consistent branding. No major technical errors or broken elements were detected. The use of external domains for donations and memberships is appropriate and secure. Overall, the technical infrastructure is stable but could benefit from performance and security enhancements.
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 streetsforallsf.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 streetsforallsf.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.