Skip to main content

Is mission.org a Scam? Security Check Results - mission.org Reviews

mission.org favicon

Is mission.org Safe? Security Analysis for Mission - Shows that Inspire, Educate, and Entertain

Check if mission.org is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

Analyzed 9/5/2025Completed 6:20:07 AM
55
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI analysis incomplete. Run a Rescan to get comprehensive AI-powered insights including business intelligence, technology detection, and security observations.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

30/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Weak X-XSS-Protection configuration

LOW

Current value: "1"

Weak Referrer-Policy configuration

LOW

Current value: "no-referrer-when-downgrade"

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

Sensitive data may be cached

LOW

Cache-Control header should include "no-store" for sensitive pages

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

70/100
Score

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Cookie Consent Banner found

HIGH

GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy85% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
phone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

17/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

80/100
Score

DMARC Partial Enforcement

LOW

DMARC only applies to 90% of messages

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security
SPF Details
Record:
v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:_spf.reply.io ~all
DNS Lookups:2/10
Policy:~all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:google(1416-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:quarantine(90% enforcement)
Subdomain Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:dylan@mission.org

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

62/100
Score

Weak Protocols Supported

HIGH

Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

OCSP Stapling Not Enabled

LOW

OCSP stapling improves performance and privacy

Certificate Transparency Not Implemented

LOW

Certificate is not logged in Certificate Transparency logs

SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

MEDIUM

SSL certificate expires in 57 days

Mixed Content Detected

MEDIUM

1 resources loaded over insecure HTTP

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 3 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Protocol Support

TLSv1.3TLSv1.2TLSv1.1

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

80/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

Domain Delete Lock Not Enabled

LOW

Domain can be deleted without additional verification

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
30 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
none(2080 days)
Protection Level
basicDNSSEC OFF
Suspicious Indicators Detected
  • Privacy/proxy registration detected

DNS Records

A Records:151.101.130.159
Name Servers:
dns1.registrar-servers.com
dns2.registrar-servers.com
MX Records:
1: aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
SOA:Serial: 1748828956, TTL: 3601s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:44ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:_spf.reply.io ~all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

100/100
Score

Good Network Security Posture

LOW

No unnecessary services detected on common risky ports

Analyze Another Website