Skip to main content

Security report for surfrider.org

Surfrider Foundation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Surfrider Foundation is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's oceans, waves, and beaches. It operates through a large network of volunteers and chapters across the United States, focusing on environmental campaigns such as plastic reduction, ocean protection, beach access, and climate action. The organization engages its audience through advocacy, volunteer programs, and fundraising via donations and merchandise sales. The website reflects a strong market position within the environmental non-profit sector, with clear messaging and calls to action. Technically, the website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform, leveraging modern marketing and analytics tools including Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility standards. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and appropriate security headers present, although explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly detailed. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations such as GDPR, featuring cookie consent mechanisms and a comprehensive privacy policy. The lack of publicly available WHOIS data is consistent with privacy protection practices common among non-profits. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious indicators were found, supporting a high legitimacy score. Strategic recommendations include publishing explicit security and incident response policies, adding a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file, and providing direct security contact information to enhance transparency and trust.

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

4 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

  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

  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 surfrider.org

This scan found 21 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
57
Security headers
40
Email security
87
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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

Surfrider Foundation holds a strong position in the environmental non-profit sector, leveraging a broad volunteer base and multiple local chapters to drive impactful campaigns. Its business model relies on donations, memberships, and merchandise sales, supported by a professional digital presence. The organization targets environmentally conscious individuals, coastal communities, and activists. Partnerships with local chapters and a dedicated merchandise store enhance its ecosystem. Growth indicators include extensive volunteer hours and campaign victories. The website's content and structure reflect a mature organization with clear strategic focus and community engagement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented, reducing common web vulnerabilities. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Forms are managed via HubSpot, which typically includes CSRF protections and secure data handling. However, the absence of a public security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure reduces transparency. No direct security contact channels were found, which could hinder incident reporting and response. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved by publishing formal security documentation and contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Provide direct security contact information such as security@surfrider.org or abuse@surfrider.org.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and marketing tools to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency around data protection officer and compliance measures to build user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Surfrider Foundation
Description
The Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s ocean, waves, and beaches through activism, campaigns, and programs focused on plastic reduction, ocean protection, beach access, coasts & climate, and clean water.
Key services
Environmental campaigns, Volunteer beach cleanups, Climate action programs, Advocacy for ocean and beach protection, Membership and community engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HubSpot CMS, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Fundraise Up widget
Platforms
HubSpot
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF protection (implied by HubSpot)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Fundraise Up
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is comprehensive and focused on environmental activism.
  3. Multiple calls to action for donations, volunteering, and membership.
  4. Use of HubSpot CMS and marketing tools indicates modern digital infrastructure.
  5. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious content.
  6. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; contact via forms.
  8. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection.
  9. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found.
  10. Strong social media and partner network presence.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform, integrating modern marketing and analytics technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Fundraise Up for donations. The site uses responsive design techniques ensuring good mobile optimization and accessibility. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple external scripts and rich media content. The technical implementation follows best practices with valid HTML/CSS and SEO-friendly meta tags. Opportunities exist to improve hosting transparency and reduce technical debt by optimizing third-party script usage and enhancing security documentation.
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 surfrider.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 surfrider.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.