Skip to main content

Security report for supportuw.org

University of Wisconsin Foundation · Education · United States

Medium risk. 7 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 University of Wisconsin Foundation website serves as the official online presence for the non-profit entity responsible for raising, investing, and distributing funds to support the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The site targets donors, alumni, and university stakeholders, providing comprehensive information on giving options, leadership giving, and impact of gifts. The foundation holds a strong market position as a reputable and established organization affiliated with a major public university. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frameworks such as Bootstrap 5 and integrates essential marketing and security tools including Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Google reCAPTCHA v3. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO practices, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and secure form handling, but lacks some advanced security headers and explicit security policies. Privacy compliance is partially met with a comprehensive privacy policy linked on a partner domain, but cookie consent mechanisms are absent. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query failure, but the domain appears legitimate and privacy protection is justified for this non-profit. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, supporting the foundation's mission effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

7 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 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 supportuw.org

This scan found 24 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
47
Security headers
15
Email security
87
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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 foundation operates in the education and non-profit sectors, focusing on fundraising and stewardship for the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Its business model relies on donor contributions, planned giving, and leadership gifts. The website reflects a mature digital presence with clear navigation and comprehensive content tailored to its audience. Partnerships with related entities such as advanceuw.org and the Wisconsin Alumni Association enhance its ecosystem. The foundation's market position is strong, leveraging university affiliation and trust signals. Growth indicators include active campaigns and multiple giving options. The organization maintains a professional brand consistent with university standards, supporting sustained donor engagement and community relations.

Security posture

The website exhibits a good security maturity level with mandatory HTTPS, use of Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms, and asynchronous loading of tracking scripts to minimize performance impact. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Compliance gaps include lack of a published security policy or incident response contacts, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file. The site does not display a cookie consent banner despite tracking technologies, which may pose GDPR compliance risks. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but could be improved with additional policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations given the use of tracking pixels and analytics.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Consider creating a vulnerability disclosure page or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to ensure no vulnerable libraries are in use and maintain up-to-date software versions.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
University of Wisconsin Foundation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Wisconsin Foundation
Description
The University of Wisconsin Foundation raises, invests and distributes funds for the benefit of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Key services
Fundraising, Investment management, Distribution of funds, Gift planning, Annual giving, Leadership giving
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Bootstrap 5, jQuery, FooBox Lightbox, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for forms
  • Facebook Pixel and Google Tag Manager scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to the University of Wisconsin Foundation.
  3. Strong branding and consistent messaging aligned with university fundraising.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (WordPress).
  5. Privacy and terms policies are linked to a related domain (advanceuw.org) indicating shared governance.
  6. Contact information is comprehensive and includes multiple channels.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected.
  9. No cookie consent banner detected despite use of tracking technologies.
  10. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query failure; domain appears legitimate based on other factors.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform with Bootstrap 5 for responsive design and jQuery for client-side scripting. It uses FooBox for image lightbox functionality and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for spam protection on forms. Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel are employed for analytics and marketing tracking. Hosting appears to be via WP Engine, a reputable managed WordPress host. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading and mobile optimization in place. Accessibility is basic and could be enhanced. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter Cards, and JSON-LD structured data. The technical stack is modern and appropriate for the organization's needs, though some technical debt may exist in accessibility and security header implementation.
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 supportuw.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 supportuw.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.