Skip to main content

Security report for cityyear.org.uk

Other · N/a

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

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.cityyear.org.uk is currently inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error page that blocks access to any meaningful content. The page contains no business information, contact details, or compliance policies, and only loads minimal external font resources. The WHOIS lookup for the domain failed with an error indicating the domain name contains too many parts, suggesting the domain registration is invalid or misconfigured. This lack of WHOIS data and website content severely limits the ability to assess the business or security posture. The technical infrastructure appears minimal with no detectable scripts or analytics, and no security headers or SSL information is available from the provided data. Overall, the site is not operational or publicly accessible, which poses a significant risk to trust and credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching cityyear.org.uk

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
57
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
65

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

Due to the absence of accessible content and WHOIS data, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. There is no evidence of company name, services, market positioning, or partnerships. The domain appears to be either misconfigured or inactive, which undermines any business credibility. No contact or legal information is present to support business operations or customer engagement.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the lack of accessible content and technical headers. The site is served over an unknown protocol with no visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers. The 403 Forbidden status indicates some access control is in place, but no further security best practices or incident response mechanisms are evident. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The domain's invalid WHOIS data further raises concerns about legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve domain registration issues to ensure valid WHOIS data and domain legitimacy.
  2. Restore website accessibility by addressing the 403 Forbidden error and ensuring proper server configuration.
  3. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and configure essential security headers.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to comply with legal requirements.
  5. Provide clear business contact information and incident response channels to enhance trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

None detected. The website returns a 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is blocked or forbidden. No WAF challenge detected. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No business or contact information is available on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or interactive elements detected.
  5. No scripts or analytics services detected.
  6. Minimal external resources loaded only for fonts.
  7. No security headers or SSL information available from provided data.
  8. WHOIS data is unavailable or invalid, indicating potential domain registration issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves a static 403 Forbidden error page with minimal HTML and CSS styling. No JavaScript libraries, analytics, or CMS platforms are detected. External resources are limited to Google Fonts. The site lacks meta tags for SEO and accessibility features. The server configuration appears restrictive, blocking access to content. There is no evidence of modern web frameworks or hosting providers. Performance is likely moderate due to minimal content, but user experience is poor given the access denial. Mobile optimization is basic as the page uses responsive meta tags but offers no content. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and requires significant improvements to support a functional website.
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 cityyear.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 cityyear.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.