Skip to main content

Security report for kensalgreen.co.uk

The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery is a UK-based registered charity dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the historic Kensal Green Cemetery. The organization operates through community engagement, guided tours, events, and collaboration with the cemetery's owning company. Their market position is that of a niche heritage non-profit with a strong local and historical focus. Technically, the website is built with basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, with no detected CMS or advanced frameworks. The site is moderately optimized for mobile and accessibility but lacks advanced SEO and performance enhancements. Security posture is limited, with no visible HTTPS confirmation or security headers, and no public security or incident response policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but could improve in security and privacy practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

5 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 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

  4. 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 kensalgreen.co.uk

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
60
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
58

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The charity operates in the non-profit sector focused on heritage conservation. Its business model relies on memberships, donations, and event bookings. The target audience includes heritage enthusiasts, local communities, and visitors interested in historical tours. The organization benefits from a long-established domain and registered charity status, enhancing credibility. Partnerships with the General Cemetery Company and local government planning portals indicate a collaborative ecosystem. Growth potential lies in expanding community engagement and digital presence. The absence of e-commerce or complex digital services suggests a low technical complexity business model.

Security posture

The current security posture is basic and could be improved. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, which are critical for protecting user data and site integrity. No incident response or security policies are publicly available, limiting transparency and preparedness. The lack of cookie consent and tracking disclosures indicates partial GDPR compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content, but the absence of modern security practices poses risks. Enhancing SSL configuration, adding security headers, and publishing security policies would significantly improve the security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent banner and clearly disclose cookie usage to comply with GDPR.
  4. Publish contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security incident reporting.
  5. Develop and publish a security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and readiness.

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery
Registration number
1106549
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery
Description
The Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery (FoKGC) is a registered charity focused on the preservation, conservation, and restoration of Kensal Green Cemetery for public benefit. They collaborate with the General Cemetery Company, run tours, events, and engage local communities to maintain the historic landscape and biodiversity of the cemetery grounds.
Key services
Preservation and restoration of cemetery, Guided tours, Special events, Publications, Community engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected despite privacy policy presence.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the homepage or main navigation.
  4. No security or incident response policies publicly disclosed.
  5. Website uses Google Fonts and basic JavaScript for menu functionality.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML.
  7. Content is focused on heritage preservation and community engagement.
  8. No e-commerce or payment processing domains detected beyond internal basket.php links.
  9. No forms detected in the provided HTML content.
  10. Social media presence includes Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (X).
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple technology stack with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, relying on Google Fonts for typography. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected, indicating a static or custom-built site. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is basic with meta viewport and title tags but lacks structured data or Open Graph metadata. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, which limits data-driven insights but enhances privacy. The site could benefit from modernization including responsive design improvements, SEO enhancements, and security hardening.
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 kensalgreen.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 kensalgreen.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.