Skip to main content

Security report for psgbi.org

Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland · Healthcare · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland is a well-established non-profit professional society dedicated to advancing the understanding and management of pancreatic diseases. Founded in 1975, it serves healthcare professionals and patients primarily in the UK and Ireland. The society organizes annual scientific meetings, supports research, and provides patient information, maintaining strong links with related national and international organizations. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with relevant content tailored to its audience. Technically, the website employs a moderate technology stack including Bootstrap 3, jQuery, and Google Analytics, with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. While the site is functional and well-structured, there is room for improvement in SEO and performance optimization. Security-wise, HTTPS is implied, and cookie consent is implemented, but there is a lack of explicit security headers and published security policies, which could be enhanced to improve trust and compliance. The WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting the ability to fully verify domain registration details and reducing domain trust slightly. However, the presence of a registered charity number and professional content supports legitimacy. Overall, the website scores well in content quality and business credibility but should address security and transparency gaps to strengthen its posture. Recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing security and incident response policies, improving WHOIS data availability, and enhancing SEO and accessibility to better serve users and stakeholders.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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 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';…

  3. 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

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

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

Keep watching psgbi.org

This scan found 26 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
67
Security headers
30
Email security
55
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention psgbi.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
8
Employees
0
Customers
8
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
38%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for psgbi.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The society occupies a niche position in the healthcare non-profit sector, focusing on pancreatic diseases. Its competitive advantage lies in its long history, professional network, and association with reputable journals and organizations. The business model is based on membership, events, and knowledge dissemination rather than commercial revenue. Target customers include medical professionals, researchers, and patients. Growth indicators include upcoming annual meetings and active research publication links. The partnership ecosystem includes collaborations with UK and international pancreatic and gastroenterology societies. Operationally, the society maintains a focused digital presence with moderate technical sophistication and a clear mission. Strategically, the society could expand digital engagement and transparency to enhance member value and public trust.

Security posture

The current security posture is moderate. The website uses HTTPS and has a cookie consent mechanism, indicating basic compliance with privacy regulations. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, which limits transparency and preparedness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The use of third-party libraries like jQuery and Bootstrap requires regular updates to mitigate risks. Overall, the security maturity is basic to moderate, suitable for a non-commercial informational site but improvable to meet higher standards. Recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing security policies, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure process.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish explicit security and incident response policies on the website.
  3. Ensure WHOIS data is complete and publicly available to improve domain trust.
  4. Regularly update all third-party libraries and frameworks to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance SEO, accessibility, and performance optimizations to improve user experience and reach.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Description
An alliance of professionals advancing the understanding and management of pancreatic conditions, for the benefit of patients. The Society promotes study and research into diseases of the pancreas and supports professional discussions and knowledge dissemination in the UK and Ireland.
Key services
Annual Scientific Meetings, Research support, Patient information dissemination, Professional networking, Access to Pancreatology journal for members
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 3, jQuery, Google Analytics, Typekit Fonts, Modernizr
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by external scripts loaded over HTTPS)
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

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 challenges.
  2. Content is focused on pancreatic disease research and professional society activities.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content; contact likely via contact form.
  4. Cookie consent and privacy disclaimers are implemented.
  5. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or malformed, limiting domain trust analysis.
  7. Use of standard web technologies and analytics tools.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional web stack with Bootstrap 3 and jQuery, which are stable but somewhat dated technologies. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for analytics and tracking. Fonts are loaded via Adobe Typekit. The site is mobile responsive with basic accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA roles. Performance is moderate, with some potential for improvement in loading speed and SEO metadata completeness. No CMS or hosting provider is explicitly identified. The site uses standard HTML5 and includes polyfills for older browsers. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 psgbi.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 psgbi.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.