Skip to main content

Security report for transparency.org

Transparency International · Non-profit · Germany

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Transparency International is a globally recognized non-profit organization headquartered in Berlin, Germany, dedicated to combating corruption worldwide. Established in 1993, it operates in over 100 countries, providing advocacy, research, and legal advice services to promote transparency, accountability, and integrity. The organization is well-positioned as a leader in the anti-corruption sector, with flagship initiatives such as the Corruption Perceptions Index and extensive global campaigns. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript frameworks like Alpine.js and integrates multiple analytics and consent management tools including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Plausible Analytics, and Cookiebot. The site is built on Craft CMS, indicating a mature content management infrastructure. However, performance is hindered by slow load times and a large page size, which could impact user experience. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but suffers from an invalid SSL certificate, which is a critical vulnerability that undermines user trust and data security. DNS configuration appears incomplete or improperly scanned, with no DNS records detected in the provided data. The absence of DNSSEC, CAA, and HSTS further weakens the security posture. No major vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but improvements are necessary to meet best practices. Overall, the website demonstrates high content quality, strong business credibility, and good privacy compliance with clear policies and consent mechanisms. The main risks stem from technical and security shortcomings, particularly the invalid SSL certificate and DNS issues. Addressing these will significantly enhance trust and security for users and stakeholders.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of transparency.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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';…

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
0
Security headers
55
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
45

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 holds a dominant position in the global anti-corruption NGO landscape, leveraging a broad network of national chapters and partnerships. Its business model focuses on advocacy, research, and public engagement funded through donations and grants. The organization targets a diverse audience including policymakers, civil society, researchers, and the general public. Its revenue streams likely include donations (facilitated via partner domains), grants, and possibly consultancy or event hosting. The website reflects a mature digital presence with extensive content, social media integration, and multilingual support. Strategic partnerships with knowledge hubs and international conferences enhance its influence and outreach. Growth indicators include active campaigns, frequent news updates, and a large subscriber base for newsletters.

Security posture

The current security posture is moderate but compromised by critical issues. The invalid SSL certificate is the most significant vulnerability, exposing users to potential man-in-the-middle attacks and undermining encrypted communications. The lack of DNSSEC and CAA records increases the risk of DNS spoofing and unauthorized certificate issuance. Absence of HSTS and OCSP stapling reduces TLS security and performance. No signs of subdomain takeover or known SSL vulnerabilities were found. Forms include CSRF tokens indicating some protection against cross-site request forgery. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are implemented, supporting GDPR compliance. Incident response and security policy information are not found, indicating potential gaps in transparency and readiness. Overall, the site requires urgent remediation of SSL and DNS configurations to improve security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately replace or renew the SSL certificate with a valid, trusted certificate to secure HTTPS connections.
  2. Review and correct DNS configurations to ensure all necessary records (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT) are properly set and visible.
  3. Enable DNSSEC and CAA records to protect against DNS spoofing and unauthorized certificate issuance.
  4. Implement HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  5. Enable OCSP stapling and TLS session resumption to improve TLS performance and security.
  6. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  7. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience, especially on mobile devices.
  8. Continue maintaining comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Transparency International e.V.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Craft CMS with modern JavaScript frameworks such as Alpine.js. It integrates multiple analytics platforms including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Plausible Analytics, alongside Cookiebot for consent management. The site uses Stripe Elements for payment forms, indicating secure payment processing integration. Performance is suboptimal with a high load time (~28.7 seconds) and a large page size (~600KB), suggesting opportunities for optimization. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed with proper meta tags, structured data (JSON-LD), and responsive design. The DNS scan data shows no records, which may be a scanning artifact or a misconfiguration. Hosting provider details are not evident from the data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires performance and DNS improvements.
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. 83/100Low21 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.