Skip to main content

Security report for againstbreastcancer.org.uk

Against Breast Cancer · Healthcare · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 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

Against Breast Cancer is a UK-based charity organization dedicated to funding research into secondary spread of breast cancer, which is the primary cause of breast cancer-related deaths. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image, targeting patients, researchers, donors, and supporters interested in breast cancer research. The organization operates primarily as a non-profit entity focused on advancing medical research and awareness. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with integration of modern analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Visual Website Optimizer. The site uses HTTPS and CDN hosting for performance and security. However, the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies indicates a gap in privacy compliance. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS and no obvious vulnerabilities, but security headers could be improved. WHOIS data is unavailable due to an invalid query on the www subdomain, limiting domain trust assessment. Overall, the website is credible and professionally maintained but should improve privacy disclosures and security headers to enhance compliance and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

4 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. 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 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

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching againstbreastcancer.org.uk

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
65
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

The charity holds a niche position in the healthcare sector, focusing on breast cancer research funding. Its business model relies on donations and fundraising campaigns, supported by clear messaging and calls to action on the website. The organization leverages social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter to engage with its audience. The use of third-party marketing and analytics tools indicates a moderate level of digital maturity. The lack of detailed business registration or VAT information on the site suggests a small to medium-sized organization. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the provided data.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses standard security practices such as Google Tag Manager for controlled script loading. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are not evident in the HTML content, which could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected. The site lacks visible security policies or incident response contacts, which are important for transparency and trust. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file further limits security communication. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers and publishing security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and ensure it is easily accessible from all pages.
  2. Implement a cookie policy with a consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Add and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to minimize security risks and maintain compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Against Breast Cancer
Description
Against Breast Cancer fund research into secondary spread, the main cause breast cancer related deaths. Our vision is a future free from breast cancer.
Key services
Funding breast cancer research, Raising awareness, Fundraising campaigns
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), Modernizr, WP Rocket
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for controlled script loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Visual Website Optimizer
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (doubleclick.net)
Tracking pixels
Visual Website Optimizer
Marketing tools
Visual Website Optimizer, AddToAny social sharing
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a charity focused on breast cancer research funding.
  2. Content is professionally presented with clear mission and calls to action.
  3. No privacy or cookie policy pages detected in the provided HTML content.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the main HTML content.
  5. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable due to query error; domain WHOIS for www subdomain is invalid.
  7. No security policy or incident response information found.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  9. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies.
  10. No signs of adult or NSFW content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1, using jQuery and several third-party integrations including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Visual Website Optimizer for A/B testing and user behavior analysis. Hosting is via AWS Cloudfront CDN, which supports performance and availability. The site uses WP Rocket for caching and optimization. The HTML content is valid and SEO optimized with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD) for organization and webpage schema. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic and could be improved. Performance is moderate, with some deferred script loading and preconnect hints. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries in the provided content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained but could benefit from enhanced accessibility and security header implementation.
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 againstbreastcancer.org.uk. 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 againstbreastcancer.org.uk.

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.