Skip to main content

Security report for kew.org

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew · Government · 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

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew is a globally recognized non-profit botanical institution based in the United Kingdom, dedicated to plant science, conservation, and public education. The website serves a diverse audience including researchers, families, schools, and general visitors, offering access to botanical collections, scientific resources, educational programs, and membership opportunities. The institution holds a strong market position as a leading botanical garden and research center. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies and integrating tools such as Google Tag Manager and Visual Website Optimizer for analytics and user experience optimization. The site demonstrates good performance, excellent mobile responsiveness, and accessibility features, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs standard security headers, and integrates a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR. However, it lacks a publicly visible dedicated security policy or incident response contact, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and secure, with strong privacy compliance and clear business credibility. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration insights but does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include publishing explicit security policies and incident response information to enhance transparency and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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 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 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 kew.org

This scan found 21 issues across 5 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
52
Security headers
50
Email security
73
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew operates as a large non-profit entity within the government and scientific research sectors. Its business model focuses on conservation, education, and public engagement through botanical gardens and scientific research. Revenue streams likely include memberships, ticket sales, donations, and educational services. The organization targets a broad audience from casual visitors to academic researchers. The website reflects a well-established brand with consistent messaging and strong trust signals. Partnerships and subsidiary domains were not explicitly identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and GDPR-compliant cookie consent. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were found. The lack of a dedicated security policy page and incident response contacts represents a compliance gap. Absence of vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits external security collaboration. Overall, the site maintains good security hygiene appropriate for a non-profit educational institution but could improve transparency and readiness by publishing security policies and incident response details.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security or abuse email addresses.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency by detailing data retention policies and user privacy rights more explicitly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew
Description
Discover a world of science hiding behind our beautiful botanical collections filled with over 40,000 living plants
Key services
Botanical garden visits, Scientific research, Education and training, Membership and fundraising, Events and exhibitions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Visual Website Optimizer
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Visual Website Optimizer
Marketing tools
Visual Website Optimizer, OneTrust Cookie Consent
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 challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, limiting domain registration insights.
  3. Site uses modern CMS (Drupal 10) and integrates recognized analytics and consent tools.
  4. Strong privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance evident.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response page found.
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt detected.
  7. Contact information including emails, phone, and physical address is present and credible.
  8. Content is educational, botanical, and safe for general audiences.
  9. Website design and navigation are professional and user-friendly.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by Drupal 10 CMS, indicating a modern and supported platform. It uses Google Tag Manager and Visual Website Optimizer for analytics and user experience improvements, alongside OneTrust for cookie consent management. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading speed. No hosting provider details were extracted. The technical stack is appropriate for a large institutional website, balancing functionality, compliance, and user engagement.
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 kew.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 kew.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.