Skip to main content

Security report for gff.co.uk

Guild of Fine Food · Retail · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Guild of Fine Food is a UK-based organization dedicated to supporting, celebrating, and encouraging independent food and drink retailers and their suppliers. Established in 1999, the organization has a strong market position within the independent food retail sector, focusing on community support and industry recognition. The website reflects this mission with relevant content and a professional design tailored to its target audience. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, reCAPTCHA, and FontAwesome icons. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring secure communications. Performance and mobile optimization are moderate to good, with basic accessibility features implemented. SEO practices are adequately addressed through meta tags and structured data. From a security perspective, the site benefits from HTTPS and standard security practices such as reCAPTCHA and cookie consent mechanisms. However, it lacks explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and security headers, which are recommended for enhanced security posture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from publishing comprehensive privacy and terms of service policies, explicit contact information, and enhanced security headers. These improvements would strengthen compliance and user trust.

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

3 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 Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…
  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 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 gff.co.uk

This scan found 19 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
65
Security headers
55
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
75

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 gff.co.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
87
Employees
0
Customers
87
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
13%

4 subdomains 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 gff.co.uk.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The Guild of Fine Food operates as an essential entity within the retail sector, specifically targeting independent food and drink retailers and producers in the UK. Its business model centers on support and celebration rather than direct commerce, positioning it as a community and industry advocate. The organization leverages partnerships and digital tools to maintain engagement and visibility. Revenue streams likely include memberships, events, and awards, although these were not explicitly detailed. The website's content and structure indicate a focused approach to its niche market, with consistent branding and a clear value proposition. Growth indicators include a long-standing domain and active digital presence. The partnership ecosystem includes major digital service providers like Google for analytics and tag management, but no direct business partner domains were identified. Strategic observations suggest the organization prioritizes reputation and industry influence over aggressive marketing or e-commerce activities.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of reCAPTCHA to mitigate automated abuse. Cookie consent is implemented, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, and security.txt files suggests limited transparency in security governance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found, but the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options represents an area for improvement. Compliance with GDPR is implied but not explicitly documented. Incident response readiness cannot be assessed due to missing contact channels. Overall, the security culture appears basic but functional, with room for enhancement in policy publication and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy detailing data collection, usage, and user rights to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add terms of service and security policy documents accessible from the website footer or dedicated pages.
  3. Include explicit contact information including general inquiries and security incident response emails or phone numbers.
  4. Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize security risks and ensure privacy compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
Guild of Fine Food
Registration number
02744552
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Guild of Fine Food
Description
Guild of Fine Food has a mission to support, celebrate and encourage independent food & drink retailers and the producers that supply them.
Key services
support, celebration, encouragement of independent food & drink retailers and producers
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, reCAPTCHA, FontAwesome, Google Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of reCAPTCHA
  • Cookie consent mechanism

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL certificate.
  2. No privacy policy or terms of service found on homepage HTML.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via cookielaw.org scripts.
  4. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for tracking.
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in provided HTML snippet.
  6. Website is built on WordPress with standard fonts and FontAwesome icons.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  9. Content is focused on supporting independent food and drink retailers in the UK.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress, utilizing Google Fonts, FontAwesome icons, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics for tracking and UI enhancement. The presence of reCAPTCHA indicates anti-bot measures. Hosting and domain registration are managed by Team Blue Internet Services UK Limited, consistent with UK-based operations. Performance is moderate with deferred script loading and font optimizations. Mobile responsiveness is good, supported by viewport meta tags and mobile web app capabilities. Accessibility is basic, with some meta tags for format detection and tap highlight disabled. SEO is supported by canonical links, Open Graph tags, and JSON-LD structured data. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts and lack of advanced security headers. Modernization opportunities include enhancing accessibility and security configurations.
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 gff.co.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 gff.co.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.