Skip to main content

Security report for f1000.com

F1000 Research Ltd. · Education · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

F1000 Research Ltd. operates a professional open research publishing platform aimed at researchers, funders, institutions, and societies. The company provides open research publishing services, consulting, and resources to accelerate knowledge dissemination. The website is well-designed, mobile-optimized, and rich in relevant content, reflecting a mature digital presence. Technically, the site uses WordPress with modern frameworks and integrates analytics and consent management tools, indicating a good level of digital maturity. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and consent mechanisms, though some security headers and explicit policies are missing. The absence of WHOIS data is a concern and warrants further investigation to confirm domain legitimacy. Overall, the site presents a trustworthy and professional front with minor areas for improvement in security transparency and domain registration clarity.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of f1000.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  2. 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
    • 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 f1000.com

This scan found 17 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
52
Security headers
90
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
79

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention f1000.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
446
Employees
1
Customers
403
Third parties
42
Weak passwords
22%

Latest record dated 2026-03-27 · 1 subdomain affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for f1000.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –f1000.com2026-03-27

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

F1000 is positioned as an essential player in the education and research publishing sector, leveraging partnerships with major funders like the European Commission and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Its business model focuses on open access publishing and consulting services, targeting a specialized audience of researchers and institutions. The company appears medium-sized, founded in 2013, with a strong content strategy including blogs, webinars, and case studies. The partnership ecosystem and active social media presence support its market credibility and growth potential. Revenue streams likely include publishing fees and consulting contracts. The website's professional presentation and comprehensive resources indicate a well-established operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with enforced HTTPS and a consent management platform compliant with GDPR. However, it lacks explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are important for transparency and trust. Security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not explicitly detected, representing an area for enhancement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the analysis. The absence of WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration transparency but does not directly impact site security. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be improved with clearer policies and technical headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  2. Add and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS domain registration data to improve trust and legitimacy.
  5. Continue maintaining GDPR compliance and enhance user privacy transparency with clear data retention and processing disclosures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
F1000 Research Ltd.
Description
F1000 is an open research publisher and services provider that enables researchers, funders, research institutions, societies, and associations to accelerate the reach of knowledge.
Key services
open research publishing, open research consulting, publishing venues, resources for researchers
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, React, Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Transcend Consent Manager
Frameworks
Gutenberg (WordPress block editor)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Consent management implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Diet3Dart
Tracking pixels
Twitter Universal Website Tag
Marketing tools
Transcend Consent Manager
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 professional design
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  3. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found in WHOIS database
  4. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent management
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage; contact via form only
  6. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information published
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Gutenberg block editor and React libraries, combined with Bootstrap for responsive design. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Twitter tracking scripts for analytics and marketing. Consent management is handled by Transcend Consent Manager, indicating a focus on privacy compliance. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets efficiently and is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by optimizing third-party scripts and caching. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable web presence.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 79/100Low25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with f1000.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 f1000.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.