Skip to main content

Security report for thegivingblock.com

The Giving Block · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Giving Block is a specialized platform empowering nonprofits to accept cryptocurrency, stocks, and donor-advised fund (DAF) donations. Founded in 2018, it has established itself as a leading service provider in the nonprofit crypto donation space, offering secure and compliant donation forms tailored to the needs of nonprofits and their donors. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting nonprofits and crypto donors with clear messaging and structured data to enhance search visibility. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme, supplemented by a variety of marketing and analytics tools including HubSpot, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Hotjar. The domain is registered with GoDaddy and uses Cloudflare for DNS, indicating a robust hosting and domain management setup. Mobile optimization and SEO practices are good, though accessibility features are basic. From a security perspective, HTTPS is enabled and domain status flags protect against unauthorized changes. However, the site lacks explicit security headers, published security policies, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Privacy compliance is limited due to the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies or consent mechanisms. The extensive use of tracking and marketing scripts suggests a moderate to extensive user tracking level, which should be balanced with stronger privacy disclosures. Overall, the site is credible and professionally managed but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security transparency to improve compliance and user trust. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, implementing security headers, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure program.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

3 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"

    • 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. 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 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 thegivingblock.com

This scan found 17 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
75
Security headers
35
Email security
80
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
78

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 Giving Block operates in the nonprofit sector, focusing on enabling crypto donations, a niche with growing demand. Its business model centers on providing technology and compliance solutions to nonprofits, facilitating new revenue streams through digital assets. The company leverages partnerships with payment processors and marketing platforms to expand reach. The website's content and structured data indicate a medium-sized organization with a clear market position as a leader in crypto philanthropy. Growth indicators include active marketing and analytics integration, though direct contact information is not prominently displayed, possibly to streamline donor interactions through platform forms.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate with HTTPS enforced and domain registration protections in place. However, the absence of security headers and published security or incident response policies represents gaps in defense-in-depth and transparency. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file was found, limiting external reporting channels. The extensive use of third-party marketing and analytics scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations is not clearly demonstrated on the site, which could expose the organization to regulatory scrutiny. Incident response readiness appears unaddressed publicly, which is a potential risk for timely breach management.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to secure DNS queries and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies including GDPR compliance details.
  3. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance incident response transparency by providing security contact information and response procedures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Giving Block
Description
Empower your nonprofit to accept crypto, stocks and DAF donations. The Giving Block’s Donation Form is secure, compliant, and donor-friendly.
Key services
Crypto donation processing, Donation forms, Compliance and security for crypto donations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, jQuery, HubSpot scripts, Google Tag Manager, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Divi (WordPress theme framework)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited etc. to prevent unauthorized changes

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads (hsadspixel.net), Reddit Ads (redditstatic.com), Twitter Ads (ads-twitter.com), LinkedIn Ads (snap.licdn.com)
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Analytics, Hotjar
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and multiple marketing and analytics scripts
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content provided
  4. Strong emphasis on crypto donation services for nonprofits
  5. Good use of structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and business information
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  8. Domain registration and DNS setup is professional and consistent
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a mature and widely supported CMS (WordPress) with the Divi theme, ensuring flexibility and ease of content management. The tech stack includes modern JavaScript libraries and integrations with marketing and analytics platforms, supporting data-driven decision making. Hosting and DNS are managed by reputable providers, contributing to reliability. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization especially considering the number of third-party scripts. Accessibility is basic, suggesting potential improvements for users with disabilities. SEO is well supported through structured data and meta tags. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which may introduce vulnerabilities or privacy concerns if not properly managed.
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 thegivingblock.com. 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 thegivingblock.com.

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.