Skip to main content

Security report for transparency.org

Transparency International · Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

Transparency International is a globally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to combating corruption and promoting integrity and accountability worldwide. The website serves as a comprehensive platform for advocacy, research, and public engagement on anti-corruption issues. It targets a broad audience including policymakers, civil society, and the general public. The organization maintains a strong market position as a leading authority in corruption research and policy influence. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Plausible Analytics, and Cookiebot for consent management. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices, has good SEO practices, and uses HTTPS with strong security headers, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices such as HTTPS enforcement, cookie consent, and security headers. However, it lacks publicly available security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are recommended for transparency and trust. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professionally maintained, and compliant with privacy regulations such as GDPR. The lack of WHOIS data is due to privacy protection, which is justified for this type of organization. Strategic recommendations include publishing a security policy, incident response information, and a vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance transparency and security posture.

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

2 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 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 transparency.org

This scan found 13 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
65
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
83

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

Transparency International operates as a large non-profit entity focused on anti-corruption advocacy and research. Its business model revolves around global advocacy, policy development, and public awareness campaigns. The organization leverages partnerships and a strong social media presence to amplify its impact. Revenue streams likely include donations, grants, and partnerships. The website reflects a mature digital presence with consistent branding and high-quality content aimed at a global audience. The organization is positioned as a thought leader in governance and anti-corruption sectors, with a broad partnership ecosystem visible through social media and external links.

Security posture

The website exhibits a good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented. Cookie consent mechanisms demonstrate compliance with privacy laws. No exposed credentials or sensitive data were found in the HTML content. However, the absence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure policy indicates gaps in transparency and readiness. The use of third-party analytics and advertising scripts introduces potential risk vectors that require ongoing monitoring. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be improved by formalizing security governance and incident response transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information to facilitate reporting and response.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy and consider adding a security.txt file.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate supply chain risks.
  5. Enhance transparency by including data retention policies and more detailed privacy disclosures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Transparency International
Description
Transparency International is a global movement to end the injustice of corruption.
Key services
corruption research, advocacy, policy development, public awareness campaigns
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Cookiebot, Plausible Analytics, JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Plausible Analytics, Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to anti-corruption advocacy.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms are in place.
  4. Use of multiple analytics and advertising tools with transparency.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for NGOs.
  6. No security policy or incident response information publicly available.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  8. No explicit contact phone numbers or physical addresses found in HTML content.
  9. Social media presence is strong and consistent with brand identity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Plausible Analytics, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The HTML and CSS are valid and the site is mobile optimized with responsive design. Performance is moderate, suggesting potential for optimization in loading times. No CMS was explicitly detected, indicating possibly a custom or static site architecture. The site uses multiple external domains for analytics and advertising, which are well-known and reputable. Accessibility features are present but could be further enhanced. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and secure user experience with opportunities for further modernization and performance tuning.
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. 45/100High22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with transparency.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 transparency.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.