Skip to main content

Security report for wikimedia.org

Wikimedia Foundation · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Wikimedia website represents the global Wikimedia movement, a large non-profit organization dedicated to creating and sharing free knowledge worldwide. The site highlights the various Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Commons, all supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The organization is well-established and recognized globally as a leader in free and open knowledge dissemination. Technically, the website is built on the MediaWiki platform, with modern HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript usage. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and performs well with clear navigation and professional design. Privacy and terms policies are prominently linked, reflecting a mature digital presence. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and does not expose sensitive data or vulnerable scripts in the provided HTML. However, explicit security headers and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident, suggesting room for improvement in security transparency and incident response readiness. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation's mission. The lack of WHOIS data is likely due to privacy protection and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, adding vulnerability disclosure information, and implementing cookie consent mechanisms if applicable.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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

5 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 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 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

  3. 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 wikimedia.org

This scan found 21 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
70

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

Wikimedia Foundation operates as a non-profit entity focused on free knowledge projects. Its market position is strong as the primary steward of Wikipedia and related projects, serving a global audience. The business model relies on donations and community contributions rather than commercial revenue. The organization benefits from a broad partnership ecosystem including sister projects and community coordination platforms. Growth indicators include ongoing project expansions like Wikifunctions and Wikidata. The foundation's operations emphasize transparency, community involvement, and open content licensing, which are competitive advantages in the knowledge-sharing sector.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good baseline security posture with HTTPS usage and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of a public vulnerability disclosure or security.txt page indicate potential gaps in security maturity. Incident response contact information is not directly available on the main site, which could delay reporting and remediation of security issues. The privacy policy is comprehensive and GDPR compliant, reflecting strong data protection practices. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced with improved transparency and formalized security communication channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information, such as a dedicated security or abuse email address, on the website.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism if cookies or tracking technologies are used to ensure compliance with privacy regulations.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Wikimedia Foundation
Description
The Wikimedia movement is a global community of people, projects, and activities working together to create and share knowledge freely. The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that hosts all Wikimedia projects and supports communities worldwide who create and curate freely accessible content.
Key services
Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikidata, Wikifunctions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
MediaWiki, JavaScript, CSS variables, HTML5
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No forms collecting sensitive data on main page

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
excellent

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content about Wikimedia projects.
  2. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable or blocked, likely due to privacy protection or query limitations.
  4. Strong presence of official Wikimedia Foundation links and donation mechanisms.
  5. No forms collecting personal data on the main page; contact is via external contact page.
  6. No tracking or advertising scripts detected in provided HTML.
  7. Privacy and terms policies are clearly linked and comprehensive.
  8. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found.
  9. No phone numbers or emails explicitly listed on main page; contact via foundation site.
Technical notes

Notes

The Wikimedia website is built on the MediaWiki platform, leveraging modern web standards including HTML5, CSS variables, and JavaScript. The site is well-structured with responsive design for mobile devices and accessibility considerations. Performance appears optimized with minimal external dependencies in the provided HTML. No heavy analytics or advertising scripts were detected, indicating a focus on user privacy and minimal tracking. The site uses Creative Commons licensing and links to official Wikimedia Foundation resources, reinforcing content authenticity. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and formalize vulnerability disclosure processes to reduce technical risks.
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. 66/100Medium33 findingsView report
  2. 66/100 −6Medium33 findingsView report
  3. 72/100Medium24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wikimedia.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 wikimedia.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.