Skip to main content

Security report for manchestermarathon.co.uk

Manchester Marathon · Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Manchester Marathon is a UK-based event organizer specializing in marathon and half marathon races, positioning itself as the UK's second largest marathon event. The website provides detailed event information and participant engagement features, supported by a modern technical infrastructure built on WordPress with integrations such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, and CookieYes for consent management. The site demonstrates good digital maturity with responsive design, SEO optimization, and user-friendly navigation. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and cookie consent compliance, though improvements in security headers and explicit contact information are recommended. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming restrictions, but the website's professional presentation and active content indicate legitimacy. Overall, the site is well-maintained and trustworthy, serving a general audience interested in marathon events.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

7 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

    • 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching manchestermarathon.co.uk

This scan found 25 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
61

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 Manchester Marathon website targets runners and athletics enthusiasts in the UK, offering event registration and information services. Its market position as the UK's second largest marathon event suggests a strong competitive advantage in the sports event sector. The business model revolves around event organization and promotion, likely generating revenue through participant fees and sponsorships, including a notable partnership with adidas. The site links to a partner domain for the Manchester Half Marathon, indicating a broader event ecosystem. The use of advanced marketing and analytics tools reflects a focus on growth and participant engagement. However, the absence of explicit contact details and terms of service may limit transparency. Strategic partnerships and consistent branding reinforce the company's market presence.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring encrypted communications. Cookie consent mechanisms comply with GDPR, and CSRF protection cookies are in place. Tracking and analytics scripts are properly integrated with user consent. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents a potential risk vector. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a security policy or incident response contact information suggests room for improvement in security governance. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by implementing recommended HTTP headers and publishing security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit contact information and security policies on the website to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  3. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities and maintain security hygiene.
  4. Consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to comply with standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Manchester Marathon
Description
Manchester is the UK's fastest, flattest and friendliest major marathon. Click here for information and guaranteed entry
Key services
Marathon event organization, Half marathon event promotion, Participant registration and information
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, CookieYes Consent Management, 3D Flipbook plugin
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with customization
  • Use of CSRF token cookie
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, TikTok Ads, Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
good

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 challenge
  2. Uses modern tracking and analytics tools with consent management
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in content
  4. No terms of service or explicit security policies found
  5. WHOIS data unavailable or blocked due to domain naming rules
  6. Cookie consent is comprehensive and GDPR compliant
  7. Website focuses on marathon event promotion and participant engagement
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, leveraging jQuery and several third-party plugins including 3D Flipbook and CookieYes for cookie consent management. It integrates Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and Hotjar for marketing and analytics purposes. The site uses modern web fonts from Google Fonts and Adobe Typekit. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts and responsive design. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies were identified. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. The site is mobile optimized and SEO friendly with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Opportunities exist to improve security headers and accessibility compliance.
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 manchestermarathon.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 manchestermarathon.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.