Skip to main content

Security report for qahh.org.uk

The Queen Alexandra Hospital Home · Healthcare · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Queen Alexandra Hospital Home (QAHH) is a UK-based charitable organization dedicated to providing nursing and rehabilitation services to disabled ex-Servicemen and women. Established in 1919, the charity offers a range of veteran care services, fundraising events, and volunteer opportunities. The website reflects a well-structured and professional presence aimed at veterans, supporters, and the community. Technically, the site is built on an older version of WordPress with several outdated plugins, which poses security risks and indicates a need for modernization. The site uses common web technologies including jQuery, WooCommerce, and Google reCAPTCHA to secure forms. Security posture is moderate with some best practices like cookie consent and CAPTCHA, but lacks modern security headers and uses outdated software versions. The WHOIS data raises concerns due to an inconsistent domain creation date set in the future, which conflicts with the charity's long history and reduces trustworthiness. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires updates and better compliance documentation to improve security and trust.

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

9 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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching qahh.org.uk

This scan found 29 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
27
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

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

QAHH operates in the healthcare and non-profit sectors, focusing on veteran care and rehabilitation. Its business model relies on charitable donations, fundraising events, and community engagement. The organization maintains partnerships with recognized bodies such as the Care Quality Commission and COBSEO, enhancing its credibility. The website targets disabled veterans and their families, as well as donors and volunteers. Despite a strong market position as a historic charity, the digital presence shows signs of technical debt and lacks comprehensive privacy and security policies. Growth opportunities include improving digital security, enhancing privacy compliance, and expanding online engagement channels.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS usage implied but not explicitly confirmed in the HTML. It employs Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms and has a cookie consent mechanism, indicating some awareness of privacy and security. However, the use of outdated WordPress core and plugins introduces vulnerabilities. The absence of security headers and lack of visible incident response or security policies further weaken the security maturity. The suspicious WHOIS data also raises concerns about domain legitimacy. To improve, the organization should update all software components, implement security headers, enforce HTTPS strictly, and publish clear security and incident response policies.

Recommendations

  1. Update WordPress core, themes, and all plugins to the latest stable versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  4. Enforce HTTPS site-wide and ensure SSL/TLS configuration follows best practices.
  5. Clarify and correct domain registration information to align with the organization's history and improve legitimacy perception.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Queen Alexandra Hospital Home
Description
Since 1919 The Queen Alexandra Hospital Home charity (QAHH) has been providing nursing & rehabilitation for disabled ex-Servicemen and women in a comfortable, professional setting
Key services
Nursing care, Rehabilitation services, Veteran support, Fundraising events, Volunteering opportunities
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 4.2.12, WooCommerce 2.3.13, jQuery 1.11.2, jQuery UI 1.11.4, Mailchimp plugin, Custom Contact Forms plugin, MaxButtons plugin, Nivo Slider, PrettyPhoto, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
PHP (implied by WordPress), Apache or similar (implied)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
45/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (implied by comment)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Mailchimp
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a charity focused on veteran care and rehabilitation
  2. Content is rich with information about services, events, and ways to get involved
  3. No explicit privacy or terms of service pages found
  4. Cookie consent banner is present and functional
  5. Use of outdated WordPress and plugins poses security risks
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in HTML content
  7. Social media presence on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube
  8. WHOIS data is suspicious and inconsistent with website claims
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 4.2.12 with WooCommerce 2.3.13 and uses several JavaScript libraries including jQuery 1.11.2 and jQuery UI 1.11.4. It integrates Mailchimp for marketing and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site uses standard plugins for contact forms and sliders. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is supported by Yoast SEO plugin but is basic. The hosting provider is Namecheap, Inc. The technical stack is outdated, which poses risks and indicates technical debt. Modernization and updates are recommended to improve security, performance, and user experience.
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 qahh.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 qahh.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.