Skip to main content

Security report for worldwildlife.org

World Wildlife Fund · Non-profit · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a globally recognized non-profit organization dedicated to wildlife conservation and endangered species protection. The website serves as a comprehensive platform to educate the public, engage supporters, and facilitate donations and advocacy efforts. It positions itself as a leader in environmental sustainability and conservation efforts worldwide. The site targets a broad audience including environmental advocates, donors, educators, and the general public interested in nature preservation. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including JavaScript, CSS, and HTML5, with integration of Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for cookie consent management. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and demonstrates good SEO practices. The use of HTTPS and security headers indicates a strong security posture, although explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly disclosed. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS, uses a consent management platform to comply with privacy regulations, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, the absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file and lack of visible Data Protection Officer contact details represent areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is malformed and unavailable, which limits domain trust verification but the website's professional presentation and branding mitigate concerns. Overall, WWF's website is a well-maintained, secure, and privacy-conscious platform that effectively supports its mission. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security policies, providing vulnerability disclosure channels, and enhancing transparency around data protection roles to further strengthen trust and compliance.

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

3 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 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 worldwildlife.org

This scan found 17 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
57
Security headers
60
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
79

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

WWF operates as a large non-profit entity focused on environmental conservation, with a strong global brand and extensive outreach through digital channels. Its business model relies on donations, advocacy, educational resources, and partnerships. The website reflects a mature digital presence with clear navigation, rich content, and active social media engagement. The organization targets environmentally conscious individuals, philanthropists, educators, and policy influencers. The absence of WHOIS data is a minor concern but does not detract from the organization's established market position and credibility. WWF's ecosystem includes multiple external domains for content delivery and social engagement but no direct subsidiaries or partner domains were identified from the website data.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a high level of security maturity with enforced HTTPS, modern security headers, and a robust cookie consent mechanism that defaults to denying tracking. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests room for improvement in transparency and readiness. The malformed WHOIS data limits domain trust verification, but the website's technical and privacy controls compensate for this gap. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from enhanced documentation and communication of security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Disclose Data Protection Officer contact information to comply with GDPR transparency requirements.
  4. Enhance WHOIS data accuracy and availability to improve domain trustworthiness.
  5. Continue maintaining and updating privacy and cookie consent mechanisms to align with evolving regulations.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
World Wildlife Fund
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
World Wildlife Fund
Description
World Wildlife Fund - The leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species. Learn how you can help WWF make a difference.
Key services
Wildlife conservation, Endangered species protection, Environmental advocacy, Public policy influence, Educational resources, Fundraising and philanthropy
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML5, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with default denied for tracking
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of nonce in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
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. Strong privacy and cookie consent implementation using OneTrust.
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers in HTML; contact likely via forms or social media.
  4. Social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn confirmed.
  5. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found.
  6. WHOIS data is malformed and unavailable, limiting domain trust verification.
  7. Website content is focused on conservation and education, safe for all audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with JavaScript, CSS, and HTML5, supported by Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for privacy compliance. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata and structured data (JSON-LD) for organization information. No CMS or hosting provider was explicitly identified. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization. The site employs security best practices including HTTPS and security headers. Technical risks are minimal, but the absence of explicit security documentation and WHOIS data represent areas for technical and operational improvement.
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 worldwildlife.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 worldwildlife.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.