Skip to main content

Security report for foodnavigator.com

William Reed Business Media · Media · United Kingdom

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

85/100

Risk levelLow

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

FoodNavigator.com is a specialized media website focused on food ingredients and food science, providing daily news and insights on additives, flavours, starch, and related topics primarily in Europe. The site targets food industry professionals, ingredient suppliers, and regulatory experts, positioning itself as a niche leader in its sector. The business operates under William Reed Business Media, a known media company, indicating a medium-sized enterprise with a professional content offering and consistent branding. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript libraries and tracking technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, and Tinypass for content monetization. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO practices, though it lacks explicit CMS identification and some accessibility features. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms but lacks visible security headers and published security policies, which are areas for improvement. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable anomaly that slightly reduces domain trustworthiness, although the website content and branding strongly suggest legitimacy. Overall, the site presents a good security posture with room for enhanced transparency and compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      Missing X-XSS-Protection header

      Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

      What to do: Add "X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block"

    • Medium

      Missing Permissions-Policy header

      Controls browser features and APIs

      What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access

      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Permissions-Policy: accelerometer=(), autoplay=(), camera=(), cross-origin-isolated=(),…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

      Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

      What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Medium

      DMARC not enforcing

      DMARC policy is set to "none"

      What to do: Gradually move to "quarantine" then "reject" policy

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

Keep watching foodnavigator.com

This scan found 15 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. See sample alerts.

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
95
Security headers
70
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
85

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

FoodNavigator.com operates in the media sector, focusing on food science and ingredients news. Its business model revolves around publishing industry news, hosting webinars, and organizing events, targeting professionals in the food industry. The site benefits from the backing of William Reed Business Media, which provides brand recognition and market reach. The presence of multiple tracking and marketing tools indicates a mature digital marketing strategy aimed at audience engagement and monetization. The lack of visible contact information and privacy policy pages suggests potential gaps in user trust and regulatory compliance. The site’s market position as a niche media leader is supported by consistent content quality and professional design, but the missing WHOIS data could raise questions for some stakeholders. Strategic partnerships or subsidiaries were not identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent mechanisms in place, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces its defense-in-depth capabilities. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information was found, limiting transparency for security researchers. The use of multiple third-party tracking scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks, though these are common in media sites. The missing WHOIS data is a concern from a domain legitimacy perspective and could indicate privacy protection or registrar issues. Overall, the site is secure for general use but would benefit from enhanced security header implementation, published security policies, and improved incident response transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen security posture.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve regulatory compliance and user trust.
  3. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  4. Establish and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  5. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS registration data to improve domain trustworthiness and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
William Reed Business Media
Description
Daily news on food ingredients, flavours, starch and food additives. Free access to news on food science in Europe.
Key services
News articles, Industry analysis, Webinars, Events, Market insights
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Cxense, Tinypass, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of modern analytics and tracking scripts with consent
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Cxense, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Tinypass
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Microsoft Clarity, Cxense
Marketing tools
Tinypass
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided HTML
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content
  5. Multiple third-party tracking and marketing scripts are used
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  7. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which is unusual for a commercial domain
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-heavy front end with integration of multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Cxense, Tinypass, Facebook Pixel, and LinkedIn Insight Tag. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO meta tags. No explicit CMS was detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary content management system. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to improve page load times. Accessibility features are basic, with room for improvement in ARIA roles and keyboard navigation. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified. The technical infrastructure supports a professional media publishing platform but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and accessibility improvements.
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 foodnavigator.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 foodnavigator.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.