Skip to main content

Security report for pwcf.org.uk

King Charles III Charitable Fund · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The King Charles III Charitable Fund website presents a well-structured and professionally designed platform focused on supporting charitable causes and sustainable community development in the UK. The organization highlights over 40 years of experience in awarding funds and incubating initiatives, positioning itself as a reputable non-profit entity. The website leverages WordPress CMS with SEO and optimization plugins, ensuring good technical infrastructure and user experience. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, though explicit security policies and vulnerability disclosures are absent. The WHOIS lookup failed due to an invalid domain name format, which raises concerns about domain registration consistency but does not detract from the apparent legitimacy of the organization based on website content. Overall, the site is trustworthy, safe, and professionally maintained, with room for improvement in privacy compliance and transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

    • 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. 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

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

Keep watching pwcf.org.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
37
Security headers
50
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
55

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 operates as a non-profit charitable fund in the UK, targeting charitable organizations and community stakeholders. Its business model revolves around grant awarding and initiative incubation, with a medium-sized operational scale inferred from its 40+ years of history. The website's content and branding are consistent, reinforcing its market position as an established philanthropic entity. While no direct contact information or partner domains were identified, the site integrates standard marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager. The absence of detailed privacy and security policies suggests an opportunity to enhance stakeholder trust and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enabled and a cookie consent mechanism in place. However, it lacks explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and Referrer-Policy, and there is no published security policy or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The failure to retrieve WHOIS data due to domain naming issues is a concern that should be addressed to ensure domain legitimacy. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from enhanced transparency and policy documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and ensure it is easily accessible from the homepage.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance protection.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security-related inquiries.
  4. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact details.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
King Charles III Charitable Fund
Description
For more than 40 years, we have been awarding funds to charitable causes and incubating charitable initiatives, helping big ideas to grow.
Key services
Awarding funds to charitable causes, Incubating charitable initiatives
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Yoast SEO, EWWW Image Optimizer, MutationObserver-based JS libraries
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via 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 accessible with full content and no blocking detected
  2. WHOIS lookup failed due to invalid domain name format
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found
  4. Cookie consent banner present and functional
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in HTML content
  6. Website uses WordPress CMS with common SEO and optimization plugins
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. No incident response or security policy information available
  9. Website content is professional and focused on charitable activities
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing modern SEO and image optimization plugins like Yoast SEO and EWWW Image Optimizer. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tracking. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and moderate performance. The HTML content is valid and well-structured, supporting good SEO practices. However, hosting provider details are not explicitly identified, and there is no evidence of advanced frameworks or platforms beyond WordPress and standard JavaScript libraries. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could be enhanced with additional security and performance optimizations.
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 pwcf.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 pwcf.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.