Skip to main content

Security report for lionsgiving.co.uk

Lions Clubs District 105SE · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Lions Clubs District 105SE operates as a charitable foundation supporting Lions Clubs in the South East England region, including Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. The organization focuses on humanitarian appeals, community service projects, fundraising, and membership engagement. The website serves as a hub for information dissemination, donation facilitation, and volunteer recruitment, positioning itself as a trusted regional non-profit entity affiliated with Lions Clubs International. Technically, the website is built on Microsoft ASP.NET WebForms technology, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Font Awesome for UI enhancements. It integrates third-party services including Termly for cookie consent management and Azure Application Insights for telemetry. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features, with moderate performance characteristics. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and implements cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks explicit advanced security headers. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is supported by clear privacy and cookie policies, and GDPR considerations appear addressed. Contact information is prominently provided, enhancing business credibility. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy front for the charitable organization, though WHOIS data is incomplete due to a lookup failure. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, improving accessibility, and publishing explicit security and incident response policies to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  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 lionsgiving.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. 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
44
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
68

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 organization holds a solid market position as a regional charitable foundation affiliated with a global network (Lions Clubs International). Its business model relies on donations, fundraising events, and volunteer participation. The website targets members, donors, and community stakeholders, providing multiple donation options and engagement opportunities. The presence of social media links and newsletter sign-up indicates active outreach efforts. The lack of detailed financial or founding year data limits deeper business intelligence insights, but the charity registration number and contact details support legitimacy. The partnership ecosystem includes payment processors like PayPal and Braintree, though no direct partner domains were identified beyond service providers.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate to good, with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented. The absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap that should be addressed. No signs of malware, phishing, or vulnerabilities were found in the HTML content. The site uses reputable third-party analytics and monitoring tools, enhancing security visibility. Incident response and security policy documentation are not publicly available, which is a compliance and readiness gap. Overall, the site demonstrates a reasonable security maturity level for a non-profit but can improve in formalizing policies and hardening HTTP headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit security policy and incident response pages to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Enhance accessibility compliance to meet WCAG standards for broader inclusivity.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries to avoid vulnerabilities.
  5. Maintain and communicate clear data retention and privacy policies aligned with GDPR.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Lions Clubs International District 105SE Foundation
Registration number
1158845
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lions Clubs District 105SE
Description
A charitable organization supporting Lions Clubs in the District 105SE area, focusing on humanitarian appeals, community service, and fundraising activities.
Key services
Humanitarian appeals, Fundraising, Community service projects, Membership engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.7.0, Microsoft ASP.NET WebForms, Font Awesome 4.7.0, Termly cookie consent, Azure Application Insights
Frameworks
ASP.NET WebForms
Platforms
Microsoft IIS (implied by ASP.NET WebForms usage)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Azure Application Insights
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Azure Application Insights
Marketing tools
Termly cookie consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a regional charity platform for Lions Clubs District 105SE
  2. Content is rich with appeals, events, and membership information
  3. Cookie consent and privacy mechanisms are implemented
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  5. WHOIS data is incomplete due to lookup failure
  6. Uses modern JavaScript libraries and tracking tools
  7. No WAF or blocking detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature ASP.NET WebForms platform, indicating a legacy but stable infrastructure. It uses modern JavaScript libraries and integrates with cloud-based telemetry and analytics services. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in loading times and resource management. Mobile responsiveness is good, ensuring usability across devices. SEO practices are adequate with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). The site lacks explicit hosting provider information but likely runs on Microsoft IIS. Technical debt may exist due to the older framework, suggesting potential modernization opportunities to improve maintainability and security.
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 lionsgiving.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 lionsgiving.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.