Skip to main content

Security report for gamanonscotland.org

Gam-Anon Scotland · Other · United Kingdom

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

Gam-Anon Scotland is a small non-profit organization dedicated to supporting individuals affected by compulsive gambling through fellowship meetings, a helpline, and shared personal stories. The website serves as an informational and support portal primarily targeting affected individuals and their families in Scotland. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using the SimplePress theme and employs LiteSpeed caching. However, it lacks modern security configurations, notably missing a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which significantly impacts its security posture. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as no visible forms or email contacts, suggests limited data collection but also a lack of transparency and compliance with data protection regulations. Overall, the website provides essential support information but requires significant improvements in security and compliance to enhance trust and protect users.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching gamanonscotland.org

This scan found 4 issues across 2 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
100
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
75
Average
90
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 organization operates in a niche sector providing support for compulsive gambling in Scotland, positioning itself as a community-focused fellowship. Its business model is based on non-profit support services including meetings and helpline assistance. The lack of digital marketing tools, social media presence, and analytics indicates a low digital maturity level. The site’s content is relevant and targeted but basic in design and user experience. The organization appears to rely on direct phone contact rather than online engagement. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries, and the hosting is managed by Planet64Host. The SPF record indicates some email security awareness, but no further business intelligence such as VAT or registration details are available.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No advanced security headers or policies are implemented, and DNS security features like DNSSEC and CAA are missing. The site does not provide any security or incident response policies or contacts, which limits its readiness to handle security incidents. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations is questionable given the lack of privacy and cookie policies. The use of outdated jQuery versions may expose the site to known vulnerabilities. Overall, the security maturity is low, posing risks to user trust and data protection.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site immediately.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance transparency.
  3. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and configure HSTS with preload to improve transport security.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  5. Update all JavaScript libraries, especially jQuery, to the latest secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on a LiteSpeed server with caching enabled, running WordPress CMS with the SimplePress theme. The technology stack includes jQuery 1.12.4 and related plugins for UI enhancements. DNS records show use of Planet64Host nameservers and SPF records for email protection. However, the site lacks HTTPS support due to an invalid SSL certificate and no TLS protocols enabled, which is a critical technical deficiency. Performance metrics are unavailable but inferred as slow due to lack of optimization indicators. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no advanced SEO or structured data implemented. The site uses standard WordPress REST API endpoints but does not leverage modern web technologies or analytics tools.
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 gamanonscotland.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 gamanonscotland.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.