Skip to main content

Security report for trees2024impact.org

Trees for the Future · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Trees for the Future is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to sustainable agroforestry and land restoration, as evidenced by their 2024 Impact Report website. The organization focuses on empowering farmers in challenging environments through their Forest Garden Approach, which promotes environmental restoration, food security, and economic growth. The website demonstrates a strong market position with notable recognitions such as the UN World Restoration Flagship Award and a clear commitment to community and environmental impact. Technically, the website is built using modern technologies like Framer and supports secure protocols such as TLS 1.3, but it suffers from slow load times and lacks some advanced security features like HSTS and OCSP stapling. Security posture is good with no critical vulnerabilities detected, but privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy, though it would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures to improve compliance and user trust.

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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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';…

  3. 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 trees2024impact.org

This scan found 23 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
67
Security headers
40
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
63

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 organization operates in the non-profit sector with a focus on environmental sustainability and community development. Their business model revolves around training farmers, restoring degraded land, and generating carbon credits, supported by partnerships and donor contributions. The website highlights significant growth indicators, including new projects, farmer graduations, and active forest gardens across multiple countries. The presence of detailed impact metrics and testimonials indicates a mature partnership ecosystem and a strong emphasis on transparency and accountability. The domain is newly registered, likely for this specific campaign, which aligns with their ongoing efforts to expand and communicate impact.

Security posture

The website employs modern SSL/TLS configurations with no known vulnerabilities and uses strong cipher suites. However, it lacks important security headers such as HSTS and OCSP stapling, which are recommended for enhanced security. There is no evidence of a published security policy or incident response plan, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also represents a compliance gap. While no critical security issues are detected, the site would benefit from implementing these best practices to strengthen its security posture and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and prominently display a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enhance HTTPS security.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking and performance.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response plan, including contact channels for security issues.
  5. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Framer platform, utilizing modern web technologies and supporting TLS 1.3 for secure communications. The site has a large number of resources (184) and a large page size (~139 KB), resulting in slow load times (~15 seconds), which could impact user experience. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. Hosting is via GoDaddy, with domain registration recent and protected against unauthorized changes. There is no evidence of advanced analytics or tracking services, indicating minimal user tracking.
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 trees2024impact.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 trees2024impact.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.