Skip to main content

Security report for thephp.foundation

The PHP Foundation · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The PHP Foundation is a non-profit collective dedicated to supporting, advancing, and developing the PHP programming language. It operates as a key steward of the PHP ecosystem by providing financial support and organizational guidance to PHP developers and contributors. The foundation is supported by a range of sponsors and members from the technology sector, positioning itself as an important entity within the open-source and developer community. The website reflects a professional and consistent branding approach with clear messaging targeted at PHP users and contributors. Technically, the site leverages modern frontend technologies such as Alpine.js and Highlight.js, and uses analytics tools like Matomo and Fathom to monitor user engagement. However, the site suffers from an invalid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which significantly impacts its security posture. While email authentication protocols like SPF and DMARC are properly configured, the absence of a cookie policy and direct contact emails or phone numbers limits privacy compliance and user trust. Overall, the website is functional and informative but requires critical improvements in security and privacy compliance to enhance trust and professionalism.

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

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 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 thephp.foundation

This scan found 18 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
50
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
60

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 PHP Foundation holds a strong market position as a central organization supporting the PHP language, backed by prominent technology companies such as JetBrains, Automattic, and Laravel. Its business model revolves around sponsorship and membership contributions, focusing on sustaining PHP development and community growth. The foundation targets developers, organizations, and companies that rely on PHP, offering services including funding developer work, maintaining the language, and promoting PHP's public image. The presence of a transparency report and active community engagement indicates a commitment to openness. The foundation's ecosystem includes a broad partnership network, enhancing its influence and reach within the technology sector. Growth indicators include recent news about new projects and sponsors, reflecting ongoing activity and relevance in the PHP community.

Security posture

The current security posture of the PHP Foundation's website is moderate but with significant gaps. The lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols expose users to potential risks and undermine trust. While DNS records show strong email authentication with SPF and a strict DMARC policy, the absence of DNSSEC and CAA records reduces DNS security. No security headers are detected, and critical HTTPS best practices like HSTS and OCSP stapling are missing. The site does not provide explicit security policies or incident response information, which could hinder effective handling of security incidents. Overall, the foundation should prioritize obtaining a valid SSL certificate and implementing comprehensive HTTPS and security header configurations to protect users and improve compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable outdated or insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  4. Add a clear cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Publish explicit security and incident response policies including contact channels for security issues.
  6. Consider enabling DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS security and certificate issuance control.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on GitHub Pages, as indicated by the IP addresses, and uses a modern frontend stack including Alpine.js for interactivity and Highlight.js for code syntax highlighting. It integrates Matomo and Fathom analytics for user tracking and uses Google Fonts for typography. The site is mobile responsive and well-structured with good SEO metadata and social media integration. However, the performance is slow with a load time exceeding 10 seconds, which could be improved by optimizing resource loading and reducing page size. The absence of a CMS suggests a static site approach, which simplifies maintenance but requires manual updates. The invalid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical technical risks that must be addressed to ensure secure and trustworthy user interactions.
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 thephp.foundation. 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 thephp.foundation.

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.