Skip to main content

Security report for fnhospice.org.uk

Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity · Healthcare · United Kingdom

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity is a well-established UK-based non-profit organization providing hospice care and support services to patients with life-limiting illnesses and their families in Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas. The website effectively communicates its mission, services, and community engagement through a modern WordPress platform enhanced with Elementor and Yoast SEO. The site includes calls to action for donations, volunteering, and event participation, reflecting a strong community-oriented business model. Technically, the website employs reputable analytics and tracking tools, maintains good accessibility standards, and is hosted by a recognized provider, Ionos SE. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data, though it lacks published security policies and advanced HTTP headers. Privacy compliance is partial, with a cookie consent mechanism present but no explicit privacy or terms of service pages detected. WHOIS data confirms domain legitimacy and long-term registration consistent with the charity's history. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and serves its target audience effectively, though improvements in privacy and security transparency are recommended.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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"

  2. 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

  3. 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 fnhospice.org.uk

This scan found 26 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
27
Security headers
30
Email security
80
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
73
Average
48

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 charity operates in the healthcare and non-profit sectors, focusing on hospice care services including inpatient care, home care, clinics, and bereavement support. Its revenue streams likely include donations, fundraising events, and volunteer contributions. The organization targets patients, families, volunteers, and local communities, positioning itself as a key regional hospice provider. The website's integration of event management, volunteer recruitment, and donation facilitation indicates a mature operational model with community engagement at its core. The absence of explicit business certifications or security policies suggests areas for organizational growth in compliance and governance. The charity's long domain age and NHS email contact enhance credibility and trust within its market segment.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive information. However, it lacks advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options, which could mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, limiting transparency and preparedness for security incidents. The use of multiple third-party tracking scripts introduces potential privacy risks, though these are from reputable sources. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present, which is a gap in responsible security practices. Overall, the site is secure for general use but would benefit from enhanced security controls and policy disclosures to improve resilience and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement and publicly disclose a security policy and incident response contact information.
  3. Add and configure HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Introduce a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  5. Regularly audit and minimize third-party scripts to reduce privacy and security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity
Description
Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity is here for patients with life-limiting illnesses, and their families, across Buckinghamshire and its borders.
Key services
Hospice Care, Inpatient Care, Care at Home, Day Services and Clinics, Lymphoedema Clinic, Therapies and Rehabilitation, Bereavement Support, Fundraising and Donations, Volunteer Programs, Community Compassionate Neighbours
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 7.0.2, Elementor 4.1.1, Yoast SEO 27.6, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Elementskit Lite, The Events Calendar plugin, Pojo Accessibility plugin, Ionos SE hosting
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and tracking scripts from reputable sources

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, TrackedWeb
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO, Elementor, CookieYes
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established UK hospice charity site with comprehensive service and support information.
  2. Uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor and Yoast SEO for content management and SEO.
  3. Includes multiple calls to action for donations, volunteering, and events.
  4. Good accessibility features including an accessibility toolbar.
  5. Uses multiple reputable analytics and tracking services.
  6. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly found in the scanned content.
  7. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via CookieYes.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  9. WHOIS data confirms domain legitimacy and long-term registration.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 7.0.2 using Elementor 4.1.1 and Yoast SEO 27.6, indicating a modern and widely supported CMS environment. It integrates multiple plugins for events, accessibility, and marketing, reflecting a feature-rich infrastructure. Hosting is provided by Ionos SE, a reputable provider. Performance is moderate with caching and minified CSS/JS assets observed. Accessibility features include an accessibility toolbar with multiple options, enhancing usability for diverse users. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. The site is mobile optimized and responsive. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts and lack of advanced security headers. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could be improved with enhanced security and privacy controls.
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 fnhospice.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 fnhospice.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.