Skip to main content

Security report for nao.org.uk

National Audit Office (NAO) · Government · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The National Audit Office (NAO) website serves as the official digital presence of the UK's independent public spending watchdog. It provides comprehensive audits, reports, insights, and recommendations aimed at supporting Parliament in holding the government accountable and improving public services. The site targets government officials, public sector stakeholders, and the general public interested in government accountability. The NAO holds a strong market position as an authoritative government oversight body with a large organizational size and a focus on transparency and governance. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and uses the GOV.UK design system to ensure accessibility and usability. It employs Google Tag Manager for analytics and Civic Cookie Control for privacy compliance. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses cookie consent mechanisms, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks some advanced security headers and a publicly available security policy or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected, and the domain registration aligns well with the official government entity, indicating high legitimacy. Overall, the NAO website is a professional, secure, and compliant platform that effectively supports its mission. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and implementing a vulnerability disclosure mechanism to further strengthen trust and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
55/ 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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"

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

Keep watching nao.org.uk

This scan found 16 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
0
Security headers
45
Email security
98
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
55
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 NAO operates as a government essential entity focused on auditing and oversight of public spending. Its competitive advantage lies in its official mandate and authoritative position within the UK government framework. The business model revolves around providing high-quality audits, reports, and insights to Parliament and public sector bodies. Revenue streams are government-funded, with no commercial advertising or affiliate programs. The target customers include Parliament members, government departments, and public sector organizations. Growth indicators include regular publication schedules and active engagement through social media and newsletters. The partnership ecosystem includes third-party providers for analytics, cookie control, and newsletter delivery. The NAO maintains a strong reputation for transparency, governance, and public accountability.

Security posture

The NAO website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS enforcement and a robust cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR requirements. The absence of exposed sensitive data and use of modern JavaScript libraries reduce common vulnerabilities. However, the lack of advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security represents an area for improvement. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The site does not publish a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy, limiting external security researcher engagement. Overall, the security culture appears strong but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement advanced HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing detailed data retention and privacy policies accessible from the homepage.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Audit Office (NAO)
Description
The UK’s independent public spending watchdog. We support Parliament to hold the government to account and we help improve public services.
Key services
Audits of accounts, Reviews of government value for money, Insights and best practices for public sector, Recommendations tracking, Future work schedules
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery 3.7.1, Modernizr, Google Tag Manager, Civic Cookie Control, E-shot newsletter service
Frameworks
GOV.UK Design System
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (canonical URLs use https)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented with opt-in/out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern security-related meta tags

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
E-shot newsletter
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained UK government audit office site
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy mechanisms implemented
  3. No visible security or compliance red flags
  4. Strong social media presence across multiple platforms
  5. Content is rich, well-structured, and regularly updated with future work schedules
  6. No exposed sensitive data or security vulnerabilities detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform with up-to-date plugins such as Yoast SEO for search optimization and Civic Cookie Control for privacy compliance. It uses jQuery and Modernizr for frontend compatibility and Google Tag Manager for analytics integration. The site follows the GOV.UK design system, ensuring accessibility and responsive design. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in script loading and caching. The technical infrastructure is stable and well-maintained, with opportunities to improve security headers and streamline third-party dependencies to reduce technical debt and enhance performance.
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 nao.org.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 nao.org.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.