Skip to main content

Security report for torproject.org

The Tor Project · Technology · United States

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Tor Project is a well-established nonprofit organization focused on advancing privacy and anonymity online through free software and open networks. Their flagship product, the Tor Browser, enables users worldwide to browse the internet privately, defend against tracking and surveillance, and circumvent censorship. The website reflects a strong commitment to privacy advocacy and community engagement, targeting privacy-conscious users, activists, and journalists. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap, FontAwesome, and jQuery, delivering a mobile-optimized and accessible user experience with good SEO practices. However, the absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies and incomplete WHOIS data slightly detract from the overall trust and compliance posture. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data but lacks visible security headers and formal vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and aligned with the organization's mission, though improvements in transparency and security documentation are recommended.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching torproject.org

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
95
Security headers
75
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
77

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention torproject.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
772
Employees
0
Customers
729
Third parties
43
Weak passwords
20%

12 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for torproject.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The Tor Project occupies a unique position as a leading nonprofit in the privacy technology sector, offering free and open-source tools that empower users to protect their online anonymity. Their business model relies on donations and community support rather than commercial revenue streams. The organization maintains a strong brand presence with consistent messaging and active social media channels. The target audience includes privacy advocates, journalists, and users in censored regions. The lack of visible contact information and formal policies on the website suggests an opportunity to enhance user trust and engagement. The organization's partnerships and community forums indicate a collaborative ecosystem, though no direct partner or subsidiary domains were identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and no apparent exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. There is no evidence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are important for transparency and user trust. The malformed WHOIS data limits domain trust verification. The organization should prioritize implementing security headers, publishing clear security and privacy policies, and establishing formal incident response and vulnerability disclosure channels to strengthen their security culture and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  3. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents and designate a data protection officer if applicable.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Improve WHOIS data transparency by ensuring accurate and complete domain registration information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Tor Project
Description
The Tor Project is a 501(c)(3) US nonprofit organization that advances human rights and defends privacy online through free software and open networks. They provide tools to defend against tracking, surveillance, and censorship.
Key services
Tor Browser, Tor Network, Privacy advocacy, Community support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap CSS, FontAwesome, jQuery, Popper.js, Modernizr
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content about privacy and anonymity.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on the homepage or footer.
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on the main page.
  4. Strong social media presence with official accounts linked.
  5. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  6. WHOIS data is incomplete and malformed, limiting domain trust analysis.
  7. Website uses modern frontend technologies and is mobile optimized.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page found.
  9. No explicit security policy or incident response information available.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern, responsive frontend stack using Bootstrap, FontAwesome, and jQuery, ensuring good mobile optimization and accessibility. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. However, the site lacks a detected CMS or backend technology information. Hosting provider details are not available. The absence of security headers and formal policies indicates technical debt in security best practices. There are no signs of tracking or advertising scripts, aligning with the organization's privacy focus. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and transparency.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with torproject.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 torproject.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.