Skip to main content

Security report for theengineroom.org

The Engine Room · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 8 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 Engine Room is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting civil society in leveraging technology and data strategically, effectively, and responsibly. Their market position is that of an established entity providing consulting, research, and support services focused on social justice and digital resilience. The website reflects a medium-sized organization with a clear mission and active engagement through reports, events, and a resource library. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frameworks such as Bootstrap 5 and uses popular libraries like jQuery and FontAwesome. SEO is well implemented with Yoast SEO plugin, and the site is mobile optimized with good performance. Analytics are conducted via Piwik (Matomo), indicating a moderate level of user tracking balanced with privacy considerations. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and shows no signs of exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities. However, security headers are not explicitly detected, and there is no visible dedicated security policy or incident response contact, which could be improved. Privacy and cookie policies are present and include consent mechanisms, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences. The lack of WHOIS data is likely due to privacy protection, which is reasonable for this type of organization. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a formal security policy, and establishing clear incident response contacts to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

8 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 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

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

Keep watching theengineroom.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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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 Engine Room operates in the non-profit sector, focusing on technology and data use for social justice. Their business model revolves around providing consulting services, research, and support to civil society organizations. The target customers are NGOs, activists, and researchers interested in digital resilience and ethical technology use. The organization maintains a consistent brand and active content updates, indicating a stable growth trajectory. Partnerships are evident through social media presence and resource sharing. Revenue streams likely include grants, donations, and consulting fees. The organization positions itself as a thought leader in the intersection of technology and social justice.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security posture with enforced HTTPS and no visible sensitive data leaks. The use of WordPress plugins and modern libraries suggests regular maintenance. However, the absence of explicit security headers and a dedicated security policy page indicates room for improvement. No incident response or abuse contact information is found, which is a gap in readiness. Compliance with GDPR is supported by privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. Overall, the security maturity is moderate, suitable for a non-profit but could be enhanced to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Add explicit contact channels for security incidents, such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
  5. Enhance website accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Engine Room
Description
Supporting civil society to use technology and data in strategic, effective and responsible ways.
Key services
Intensive Support, Light-Touch Support, Consulting Services, Research
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Bootstrap 5, jQuery, FontAwesome, Owl Carousel, Yoast SEO, ShareThis
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (implied by WordPress ecosystem)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik (Matomo)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
ShareThis
Marketing tools
ShareThis
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 social justice and technology
  3. WHOIS data is not publicly available, likely due to privacy protection
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices
  5. Presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response contact found
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn and Twitter
  8. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap 5 for responsive design and jQuery for scripting. FontAwesome provides iconography, and Owl Carousel is used for content sliders. SEO is managed via Yoast SEO plugin, and social sharing is enabled through ShareThis. Analytics are performed using Piwik (Matomo), indicating a preference for privacy-respecting tools. The site loads moderately fast and is mobile optimized. There is no indication of custom backend infrastructure or cloud hosting provider from the HTML content. Technical debt appears low, but security header implementation and accessibility could be improved.
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 theengineroom.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 theengineroom.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.