Skip to main content

Security report for fundraisingregulator.org.uk

Fundraising Regulator · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Fundraising Regulator is an independent UK regulatory body overseeing charity fundraising standards across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It aims to improve fundraising practices and restore public trust, offering services such as complaint handling, registration, and proactive regulation. The website is professionally designed, well-structured, and targets charitable organizations, fundraisers, and the general public interested in ethical fundraising. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, uses Google Tag Manager for analytics, and implements cookie consent mechanisms, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though additional security headers and a public security policy could enhance trust. Overall, the site is trustworthy, compliant with privacy regulations, and provides comprehensive information relevant to its sector.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

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

  4. 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.

    • Medium

      SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

      SSL certificate expires in 46 days

      What to do: Plan SSL certificate renewal

Keep watching fundraisingregulator.org.uk

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
95
Security headers
70
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
83

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 fundraisingregulator.org.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for fundraisingregulator.org.uk right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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

The Fundraising Regulator holds a unique market position as the UK's independent regulator for charitable fundraising, serving a niche non-profit sector. Its business model focuses on regulatory oversight rather than commercial revenue, emphasizing public trust and compliance. The organization maintains a clear partnership ecosystem via social media and public communications but does not show evidence of subsidiaries or parent companies. Growth indicators include recent publications and updates to fundraising codes. The website supports transparency and engagement through multiple contact channels and resource libraries, reinforcing its authoritative role in the sector.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security maturity level with HTTPS and cookie consent in place. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of explicit security headers and a public incident response or vulnerability disclosure policy indicates room for improvement. Compliance with GDPR is evident through privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly documented, which could be addressed to enhance stakeholder confidence. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Regularly review and update cookie and privacy policies to maintain GDPR compliance and user trust.
  5. Enhance monitoring and logging capabilities to detect and respond to security incidents promptly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Fundraising Regulator
Registration number
10016446
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fundraising Regulator
Description
The Fundraising Regulator is the independent regulator of charitable fundraising in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was established following the Etherington review to strengthen charity regulation and restore public trust in fundraising.
Key services
Complaints and investigations, Fundraising Badge, Registration, Proactive regulation, Fundraising Preference Service, Code Advice Service
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

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 no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive, professional, and well-structured.
  3. Strong focus on charity fundraising regulation and public trust.
  4. Multiple navigation menus with clear structure and submenus.
  5. Cookie consent banner and privacy compliance mechanisms implemented.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on subdomain rather than domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern CMS platform, Drupal 10, which supports modularity and security. Use of Google Tag Manager indicates integration with analytics and marketing tools. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident in meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading speed. No hosting provider details were identified, but the site uses HTTPS with a presumably valid SSL certificate. Technical debt appears low, but adding security headers and formalizing security policies would reduce risk and improve resilience.
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. 83/100 +2Low26 findingsView report
  2. 81/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fundraisingregulator.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 fundraisingregulator.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.