Skip to main content

Security report for architecture.com

Royal Institute of British Architects · Other · United Kingdom

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is a leading professional body and membership organization dedicated to advancing architecture. The website serves architects, students, and related professionals by providing education, resources, awards, and advocacy. The site is well-branded, professionally designed, and offers comprehensive content relevant to its audience. Technically, it uses modern JavaScript frameworks, Umbraco CMS, and integrates multiple analytics and tracking tools with proper cookie consent mechanisms. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and secure forms, though some security headers and explicit policies could be improved. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection, which is justified for this type of organization. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and compliant with privacy regulations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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 architecture.com

This scan found 16 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
75
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
82

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

RIBA holds a strong market position as the UK's premier architectural institution with international influence. Its business model revolves around membership services, professional learning, publications, and events. The organization leverages partnerships with related domains such as RIBA Journal, RIBA Books, and RIBA Academy to extend its offerings. The website reflects a mature digital presence with consistent branding and high-quality content, targeting professional architects and related stakeholders. Growth indicators include active campaigns, awards, and educational webinars. The partnership ecosystem is robust, supporting the organization's mission and market reach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and secure form handling including anti-forgery tokens. However, the absence of visible security headers like Content-Security-Policy and lack of published security policies or incident response information indicate areas for improvement. The use of multiple third-party analytics and tracking scripts requires ongoing vigilance to prevent vulnerabilities. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were detected in the HTML content. The organization would benefit from publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to enhance transparency and incident readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance contact information availability by providing verified company emails and phone numbers for support and security contacts.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Royal Institute of British Architects
Description
RIBA advances architecture for all by building the world’s greatest community of architects through education, support, inspiration, and championing architects to deliver better, safer, more inclusive and sustainable places.
Key services
Professional learning and CPD, Architectural awards and competitions, Publications and resources, Advocacy and campaigns, Membership services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Alpine.js, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Cookiebot, Umbraco CMS
Frameworks
Alpine.js
Platforms
Umbraco CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, Google Analytics (via GTM), LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
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 rich content and no blocking detected
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or blocked, indicating privacy protection
  3. Strong branding and consistent professional design
  4. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage; contact via forms
  6. Use of multiple analytics and tracking services with cookie consent
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response info published
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  9. Use of modern JavaScript frameworks and Umbraco CMS
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Umbraco CMS with a modern frontend using Alpine.js and various JavaScript libraries. It integrates Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, and Cookiebot for analytics and consent management. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading times. The technical stack is current and supports a professional user experience. No critical technical debt or risks were identified from the HTML content analysis.
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 architecture.com. 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 architecture.com.

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.