Skip to main content

Security report for lboro.ac.uk

Loughborough University · Education · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Loughborough University is a well-established higher education institution in the United Kingdom, recognized as a top ten UK university for ten consecutive years. The university offers a broad range of undergraduate, postgraduate, and research degree programs, including a London campus. The website reflects a strong market position with clear branding, comprehensive content, and a focus on student experience and research innovation. The target audience includes prospective and current students, staff, alumni, and researchers. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and a custom CSS/JS framework, ensuring good performance, accessibility, and SEO optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms implemented, although explicit security headers are not evident in the HTML. Privacy compliance is robust with clear privacy and cookie policies, and GDPR adherence is indicated. The absence of WHOIS data is consistent with .uk domain privacy policies and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Overall, the website demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and digital maturity.

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

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. 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

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 11 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching lboro.ac.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
85
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

Loughborough University operates in the education sector with a large institutional size. Its competitive advantage lies in its consistent top ranking and reputation for student experience. The business model focuses on delivering quality education and research services. Revenue streams likely include tuition fees, research grants, and partnerships. The university maintains a strong partnership ecosystem, including its London campus subsidiary. Growth indicators include ongoing research initiatives and active engagement with prospective students through open days and digital outreach. The website's comprehensive content and official social media presence support its market positioning and brand strength.

Security posture

The university's website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, cookie consent management, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which could be enhanced to improve transparency and readiness. The use of reputable analytics and tag management tools is balanced with privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is good but could benefit from additional hardening and published security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish explicit security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish an incident response contact or security@ email address to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
  3. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible security research and disclosures.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party libraries and analytics tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance monitoring and logging capabilities to detect and respond to security incidents promptly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Loughborough University
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Loughborough University
Description
A top ten university with a reputation for the best student experience in the UK
Key services
Undergraduate study, Postgraduate study, Research degrees, London campus education, Open days and admissions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.5.1, Google Tag Manager, CookieControl by Civic Computing, Silktide analytics
Frameworks
Fountain CSS/JS (Loughborough custom framework)
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
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Silktide, Google Tag Manager, DoubleClick
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
DoubleClick, Silktide analytics
Marketing tools
CookieControl
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 rich content and no blocking detected
  2. Strong branding and consistent professional presentation
  3. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanism
  4. Multiple official social media channels linked
  5. No security headers explicitly detected in HTML but HTTPS is enforced
  6. No WHOIS data available, likely due to .uk privacy policies
  7. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and analytics tools
  9. Good accessibility and SEO practices observed
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including jQuery 3.5.1, Google Tag Manager, and a custom CSS/JS framework named Fountain. It loads external scripts asynchronously to optimize performance. The site is mobile responsive and includes accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA labels. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter cards, and JSON-LD structured data describing the organization and contact points. Hosting details are not explicitly disclosed, but the presence of .ac.uk domain and UK-based content suggests academic hosting infrastructure. Performance is moderate with room for optimization in script loading and caching strategies. No CMS is explicitly detected from the HTML source.
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 lboro.ac.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 lboro.ac.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.