Skip to main content

Is scholarsatrisk.org a Scam? Security Check Results - Scholars at Risk Reviews

scholarsatrisk.org favicon

Is scholarsatrisk.org Safe? Security Analysis for Scholars at Risk

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

Non-profitUnited Statesmedium
WordPressjQueryBootstrapGoogle AnalyticsGoogle Tag Manager+2 more
Analyzed 9/5/2025Completed 9:54:17 AM
46
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

Scholars at Risk is a well-established non-profit organization dedicated to protecting threatened scholars and promoting academic freedom globally. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and a consistent brand identity. It serves academic institutions, scholars, students, and advocacy groups by providing protection services, advocacy initiatives, and educational resources. The organization is positioned as a trusted leader in its niche with a medium-sized network and a founding date of 2009. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern frameworks like Bootstrap and integrates multiple third-party services such as Google Analytics, Mapbox, and social media platforms. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and use of reCAPTCHA, though some security headers are missing and no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by adding explicit security headers, a cookie consent banner, and publishing a security policy and incident response contacts. The WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, which is justified for this type of non-profit. Contact information is clear and includes a physical address and phone number, enhancing trustworthiness. The website is safe for general audiences, with no adult or explicit content detected. It effectively balances advocacy, education, and protection services with a professional and trustworthy online presence.

Detected Technologies

WordPressjQueryBootstrapGoogle AnalyticsGoogle Tag ManagerMapboxSocial Ink plugins

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Scholars at Risk operates in the non-profit sector focused on academic freedom and scholar protection. Its business model revolves around a global network of institutions and individuals providing sanctuary, advocacy, and educational programs. The organization leverages partnerships with academic institutions and advocacy groups to extend its reach. Revenue streams likely include donations, grants, and membership contributions. The website's integration with platforms like EveryAction suggests active fundraising and supporter engagement. The organization maintains a strong social media presence and regularly publishes reports and newsletters, indicating active community engagement and thought leadership. The lack of visible commercial activity aligns with its non-profit mission. Strategic observations include the importance of maintaining digital security and privacy to protect vulnerable scholars and the organization's reputation.

Extracted Contact Information

Marketing Intelligence Data

Phone Numbers (1)

+1212998****

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms from abuse. The presence of Wordfence scripts suggests active security monitoring. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents a gap that could be exploited by attackers. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site lacks a published security policy or incident response contact information, which are important for transparency and readiness. GDPR compliance is partially indicated by the privacy policy, but the absence of a cookie consent mechanism is a compliance gap. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers, cookie consent, and incident response disclosures.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement explicit security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

Scholars at Risk

Description:

Scholars at Risk is an international network dedicated to protecting scholars and promoting academic freedom worldwide. It provides sanctuary and assistance to threatened scholars, advocates against attacks on higher education communities, and empowers scholars and students to promote free inquiry and expression.

Key Services:
Protection services for threatened scholarsAdvocacy initiatives against attacks on higher educationEducational programs and resources promoting academic freedom
Content Quality:

excellent

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
WordPressjQueryBootstrapGoogle AnalyticsGoogle Tag ManagerMapboxSocial Ink plugins
Frameworks:
Bootstrap
Platforms:
WordPress
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

good

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
85/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Security plugin Wordfence indicated by script

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Google AnalyticsGoogle Tag Manager
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:basic

Advertising & Marketing

Ad Networks:
AddThis
Tracking Pixels:
AddThis
Marketing Tools:
AddThisEveryAction
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:excellent
User Experience:excellent
Content Relevance:excellent
Navigation Clarity:excellent
Professionalism:excellent
Trustworthiness:high

Key Observations

1

Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

15/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

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

58/100
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

Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

MEDIUM

Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

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

🛡️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

60/100
Score

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

No DKIM record found

MEDIUM

DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

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.protection.outlook.com -all
DNS Lookups:1/10
Policy:-all
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com
Forensic Reports:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com

🏆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 76 days

Mixed Content Detected

MEDIUM

2 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

75/100
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

DMARC Policy Set to None

LOW

DMARC is configured but not enforcing any policy

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
18 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
low(170 days)
Protection Level
basicDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:35.212.44.130
Name Servers:
ns1.nyu.net
ns2.nyu.org
ns4.nyu.edu
MX Records:
10: scholarsatrisk-org.mail.protection.outlook.com
SOA:Serial: 201702089, TTL: 900s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:159ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

0/100
Score

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

HIGH

Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

CRITICAL

Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

CRITICAL

Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for interactivity, and Mapbox for mapping features. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and uses EveryAction for supporter engagement and fundraising forms. The site loads multiple external resources from trusted CDNs and APIs, ensuring performance and reliability. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well addressed. Some technical debt is indicated by missing security headers and lack of cookie consent. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple external scripts and plugins. Opportunities exist to optimize loading times and enhance security configurations to reduce risk and improve user experience.
Analyze Another Website