Skip to main content

Security report for emfcamp.org

Electromagnetic Field · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Electromagnetic Field is a UK-based non-profit organization that hosts an annual camping festival focused on technology, creativity, and maker culture. The event attracts a niche audience of hackers, artists, scientists, and engineers interested in diverse topics ranging from computer security to crafts. The organization operates primarily through volunteer efforts and sponsorships, providing attendees with amenities such as fast internet and power. The website reflects a well-branded, content-rich platform that effectively communicates the event's purpose and community spirit. Technically, the website employs standard modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, hosted by a reputable UK provider, Sargasso Networks. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices but lacks some advanced accessibility features and security headers. HTTPS is enabled, ensuring secure communications, and forms are implemented securely. However, the absence of a cookie consent mechanism and security policy pages indicates room for improvement in privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site shows a moderate security posture with HTTPS and secure form handling but lacks explicit security headers and incident response information. The WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy-protected, which is common for non-profit events but limits domain trust verification. No vulnerabilities or malicious content were detected. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe for general audiences. Strategically, the organization should focus on enhancing privacy compliance by adding cookie consent and publishing security policies. Implementing security headers and a vulnerability disclosure program would strengthen security posture. Improving accessibility and providing clearer contact information would enhance user trust and inclusivity. These steps will support the organization's credibility and protect its community as it grows.

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

3 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

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

Keep watching emfcamp.org

This scan found 18 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
85
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
40
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

Electromagnetic Field occupies a unique niche in the UK event market as a non-profit festival dedicated to technology and maker culture. Its competitive advantage lies in its strong community focus, volunteer-driven model, and diverse programming that appeals to a technically savvy and creative audience. Revenue streams likely include sponsorships, ticket sales, and donations. The target customers are enthusiasts and professionals in technology, arts, and sciences seeking immersive experiences. Growth indicators include consistent event scheduling and active social media engagement. The partnership with Sargasso Networks for hosting indicates a reliable infrastructure. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to expand digital presence and improve compliance to support sustainable growth.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and secure form submissions. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, which limits transparency and preparedness. GDPR compliance is partially addressed via a privacy policy, but lack of cookie consent and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are gaps. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were detected. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit event site but could be significantly improved with targeted enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance website accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Electromagnetic Field
Description
Electromagnetic Field is a non-profit UK camping festival for those with an inquisitive mind or an interest in making things: hackers, artists, geeks, crafters, scientists, and engineers. It hosts a temporary town of nearly three thousand people enjoying talks, performances, and workshops on diverse topics including blacksmithing, biometrics, chiptunes, computer security, high altitude ballooning, lockpicking, origami, democracy, online privacy, and knitting.
Key services
Camping festival, Workshops, Talks and performances, Fast internet and power provision, Community engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Secure form submission

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, limiting domain registration insights.
  3. The site uses HTTPS and has a privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism.
  4. No explicit security headers detected in the provided data.
  5. The site is a non-profit event platform with a clear target audience and good content quality.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  7. External links mostly point to subdomains of emfcamp.org and a hosting provider.
  8. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly provided on the main page.
  9. Social media presence includes Fediverse link but no mainstream platforms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard web technologies (HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript) with no detected CMS or complex frameworks. Hosting is provided by Sargasso Networks, a known UK hosting provider. The site loads with moderate performance and is mobile-optimized. SEO practices are good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. However, the site lacks advanced accessibility features and security headers. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking services, indicating minimal user tracking. The technical implementation is solid for a small non-profit event site but could benefit from modernization in security and privacy features.
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 emfcamp.org. 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 emfcamp.org.

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.