Skip to main content

Security report for jrf.org.uk

Joseph Rowntree Foundation · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a well-established UK non-profit organization dedicated to reducing poverty and supporting social justice. Their website reflects a professional and comprehensive digital presence, offering extensive research, reports, and partnership opportunities. The organization targets policymakers, researchers, and the general public interested in poverty alleviation. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, employs modern web standards, and is optimized for mobile devices. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and consent management, though explicit security headers should be verified server-side. The WHOIS data query failed due to querying the subdomain instead of the domain, but the website's legitimacy is supported by charity registration numbers and consistent branding. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure and trustworthy business presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
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

6 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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 jrf.org.uk

This scan found 27 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
42
Security headers
40
Email security
65
DNS health
55
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
68
Average
52

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 jrf.org.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
8
Employees
0
Customers
2
Third parties
6
Weak passwords
25%

1 subdomain 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 jrf.org.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

JRF holds a strong market position within the UK non-profit sector focused on poverty research and social policy. Their business model revolves around funding, research, and advocacy. The website content and social media presence indicate active engagement with stakeholders and the public. The organization benefits from trust signals such as official charity numbers and transparent contact information. Growth indicators include regular publication of reports and active event promotion. Partnerships are implied through funding and collaborative work, though no explicit partner domains were identified in the HTML content.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and uses Google Tag Manager and a cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of privacy and security best practices. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options were not visible in the HTML source and should be confirmed at the server level. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available on the site, representing an area for improvement. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced with more transparent security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options at the server level.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking services to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance data protection officer contact visibility to support GDPR compliance and user trust.
  5. Maintain and update privacy and cookie policies to reflect evolving regulations and best practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Registration number
12132713
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Description
At the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, we work to speed up and support the transition to a future free from poverty, in which people and planet can flourish.
Key services
Research and reports on poverty and social issues, Funding and partnership with organizations working to reduce poverty, Advocacy and public engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Frontify CDN, Cookielaw.org consent management
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of consent management for cookies

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookielaw.org consent management
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 challenge detected.
  2. Content is rich, professionally presented, and relevant to the non-profit sector.
  3. Clear navigation with multiple well-structured menus and sections.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (Drupal 10).
  5. Strong social media presence with verified official accounts.
  6. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on subdomain, not domain.
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present and comprehensive with consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, ensuring a robust content management framework. The use of Google Tag Manager and Frontify CDN indicates integration with modern marketing and asset delivery tools. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features, contributing to a positive user experience. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by external assets and tracking scripts. There is no indication of outdated or vulnerable libraries in the HTML source. Opportunities exist to improve server-side security headers and to document security and privacy practices more explicitly.
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 jrf.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 jrf.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.