Skip to main content

Security report for alfredfoundation.org.au

Alfred Health · Healthcare · Australia

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Alfred Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising funds to support The Alfred hospital, a leading healthcare provider in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia. The foundation facilitates community and corporate donations to drive innovation, acquire advanced medical technology, and improve patient care. The website reflects a strong market position as a key healthcare foundation with statewide service responsibilities. Technically, the website employs modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel, integrates accessibility features via UserWay, and is built on the ExpressionEngine CMS. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO and accessibility standards. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and secure form handling, though explicit security headers and public security policies are absent. Privacy compliance is partially met with a clear privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and aligned with the healthcare sector's expectations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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

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

Keep watching alfredfoundation.org.au

This scan found 24 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
20
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
66

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 Alfred Foundation operates within the healthcare and non-profit sectors, targeting donors, patients, and the Victorian community. Its business model centers on fundraising and community engagement to support hospital services. The foundation benefits from strong brand association with Alfred Health and maintains a professional digital presence with clear contact information and social media engagement. The partnership with alfredappeal.org.au indicates a focused fundraising ecosystem. The foundation's market position is strong due to its role in supporting a major hospital with statewide services. Growth indicators include active news updates and community involvement. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to enhance transparency around security and privacy practices to further build trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and secure form submissions including CSRF tokens. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of publicly available security policies or incident response contacts limits transparency. Privacy compliance is partial, with a comprehensive privacy policy but no cookie consent mechanism despite use of tracking scripts. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers, publishing security policies, and improving cookie consent mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize security risks and privacy concerns.
  5. Consider enhancing WHOIS transparency if possible to improve domain trustworthiness perception.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Alfred Health
Description
The Alfred Foundation raises funds to support The Alfred hospital, a major healthcare provider in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia. It supports innovation, technology acquisition, facility redevelopment, and patient care improvements.
Key services
Fundraising, Community engagement, Supporting hospital innovation and patient care
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, ShareThis, Leaflet.js, UserWay Accessibility Widget, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
ShareThis
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking detected.
  2. WHOIS data is privacy protected with no detailed registrant info.
  3. Strong branding and consistent design aligned with Alfred Health.
  4. Multiple official contact points and social media presence.
  5. No security policy or incident response info publicly available.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite tracking scripts.
  7. Use of modern analytics and accessibility tools.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in provided data.
  9. No vulnerabilities or suspicious domains found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on ExpressionEngine CMS and uses modern JavaScript libraries and services including Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, ShareThis, Leaflet.js for maps, and UserWay for accessibility. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO metadata including Open Graph tags. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. The presence of CSRF tokens in forms indicates secure form handling. Hosting provider details are not explicit. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries in the provided HTML. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and cookie consent mechanisms to reduce technical risk.
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 alfredfoundation.org.au. 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 alfredfoundation.org.au.

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.