Skip to main content

Security report for wikimediafoundation.org

Wikimedia Foundation · Non-profit · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Wikimedia Foundation is a well-established nonprofit organization founded in 2003, best known for hosting Wikipedia and supporting free knowledge dissemination globally. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content supporting its mission, targeting a broad audience including volunteers, students, and the general public. The organization leverages WordPress CMS with modern technologies such as Mapbox for mapping and Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics. The site is well optimized for SEO, mobile, and accessibility, demonstrating high digital maturity. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and domain protections, though improvements like DNSSEC and explicit security headers could enhance defenses. Privacy compliance is partial, with a clear privacy policy but lacking cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is trustworthy, professional, and aligns well with the Wikimedia Foundation's global nonprofit mission.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 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 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

  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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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 wikimediafoundation.org

This scan found 19 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
42
Security headers
95
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
75

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 in the nonprofit sector, focusing on education and technology to support Wikimedia projects. Its market position is strong as the backbone of Wikipedia, a top 10 global website. The business model relies on donations and volunteer contributions, supported by transparent reporting and public engagement. The organization maintains a consistent brand and has a large volunteer base worldwide. Partnerships and external links include social media and donation platforms, with no suspicious domains detected. The foundation's longevity and domain registration data reinforce its credibility and operational stability.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with strong domain status protections, indicating a secure domain management approach. Use of Matomo analytics suggests a privacy-aware tracking strategy. However, the absence of DNSSEC and visible security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options represents areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Incident response and security policies are not explicitly published, which could be enhanced to improve transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from additional best practices and public disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and enhance domain security.
  2. Implement and display a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Wikimedia Foundation
Description
We are the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia. We support the people, technology, and policies that enable reliable information to be shared with the world.
Key services
Hosting Wikimedia projects, Supporting volunteers, Technology development, Public policy advocacy, Fundraising and donations
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Mapbox GL JS, Matomo Analytics, Piwik Tag Manager
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with proper input types

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Marketing tools
Matomo Tag Manager
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Content is comprehensive and relevant to Wikimedia Foundation's mission.
  3. No signs of phishing or malware.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage; contact likely via internal pages.
  5. No visible cookie consent banner despite GDPR relevance.
  6. Use of Matomo analytics indicates privacy-conscious tracking.
  7. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a minor security gap.
  8. Domain status flags prevent unauthorized changes, enhancing domain security.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with Yoast SEO plugin, ensuring strong SEO and content management capabilities. It uses modern JavaScript libraries such as Mapbox GL JS for interactive maps and Matomo for analytics, reflecting a privacy-conscious approach. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with fast loading times and well-structured content. Hosting details are not explicit but domain registrar is MarkMonitor, a reputable provider. The technical stack is modern and well maintained, with opportunities to enhance security configurations and privacy compliance.
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. 74/100 −5Medium27 findingsView report
  2. 79/100Low20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wikimediafoundation.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 wikimediafoundation.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.