Skip to main content

Security report for iwf.org.uk

Internet Watch Foundation · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a UK-based non-profit charity dedicated to eliminating online child sexual abuse imagery. Established in 1996, it operates a trusted anonymous reporting hotline and collaborates with businesses and governments to identify and remove harmful content from the internet. The organization holds a strong market position as a leading authority in online child protection and abuse prevention. Technically, the IWF website is built on the Umbraco CMS platform, utilizing modern web technologies such as Typekit fonts, Cookiebot for consent management, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility standards, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS, employs security headers, and integrates cookie consent mechanisms, indicating a solid security posture. However, explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly available, suggesting room for improvement in transparency and preparedness. Overall, the IWF website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations such as GDPR. The absence of WHOIS data is due to an invalid query format rather than privacy protection, and does not detract from the organization's legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security policies, vulnerability disclosure procedures, and data protection officer contacts to enhance trust and compliance.

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

4 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"

    • 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 iwf.org.uk

This scan found 21 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
71

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 iwf.org.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for iwf.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 IWF operates as a specialized non-profit entity focused on online child sexual abuse prevention. Its business model revolves around charitable funding, corporate partnerships, and public donations. The organization targets businesses for collaboration, donors for funding, and victims or concerned individuals for reporting abuse. Its competitive advantage lies in its official recognition, government collaboration, and established reporting infrastructure. The presence of multiple subsidiary companies indicates a structured organizational setup. The IWF's partnership ecosystem includes government registries and social media platforms for outreach and transparency. Growth indicators include active social media engagement and continuous public awareness campaigns.

Security posture

The IWF website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of security headers, and cookie consent compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of publicly available security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms represents a compliance gap. The organization appears GDPR compliant with clear privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not explicitly documented, which could impact stakeholder confidence. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by increased transparency and formalized security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  3. Provide contact details for a Data Protection Officer or security contact.
  4. Enhance transparency around data retention and processing practices.
  5. Regularly review and update security headers and cookie consent mechanisms.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
INTERNET WATCH FOUNDATION
Registration number
03426366
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Internet Watch Foundation
Description
IWF works to stop the repeated victimisation of people abused in childhood and make the internet a safer place, by identifying & removing global online child sexual abuse imagery.
Key services
Online child sexual abuse imagery identification and removal, Anonymous reporting hotline, Corporate responsibility partnerships, Public awareness and prevention programs
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Typekit fonts, Cookiebot consent management, Google Tag Manager, Umbraco Forms, GTranslate
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
  • Use of secure forms with validation

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a legitimate UK charity focused on online child sexual abuse prevention.
  2. Content is comprehensive, professional, and well-structured.
  3. No signs of adult or explicit content; content safety rating is safe.
  4. Good privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms implemented.
  5. WHOIS data unavailable due to invalid query; no negative impact on legitimacy.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (Umbraco).
  7. No WAF or blocking detected; full content accessible.
  8. Contact information is clear and includes phone and physical address.
  9. No explicit security policy or incident response info published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Umbraco CMS platform, leveraging modern front-end technologies including Typekit fonts and Cookiebot for consent management. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading speed. The technical infrastructure is robust and supports the organization's mission effectively. Opportunities exist to modernize further by adopting newer frameworks or enhancing server-side performance. Technical risks are minimal but should be monitored through regular security assessments.
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. 71/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with iwf.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 iwf.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.