Skip to main content

Security report for raeng.org.uk

Royal Academy of Engineering · Other · United Kingdom

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Royal Academy of Engineering is a well-established UK-based charity organization focused on leveraging engineering to promote a sustainable society and an inclusive economy. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting engineering professionals, stakeholders, and the general public interested in sustainability and engineering advocacy. The domain age and WHOIS data confirm the organization's legitimacy and long-standing presence since 1997. Technically, the website employs a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though security headers could be enhanced and explicit security policies published. Privacy compliance is supported by a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism, but explicit privacy and terms of service pages were not found in the provided content. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and secure, with room for improvement in transparency around security policies and incident response.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

2 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 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. 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 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

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

Keep watching raeng.org.uk

This scan found 13 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
75
Security headers
80
Email security
88
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
84

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 raeng.org.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1,488
Employees
0
Customers
1,488
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
10%

9 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 raeng.org.uk.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The Royal Academy of Engineering operates as a charity in the engineering sector, focusing on sustainability and inclusivity. Its market position is strong as a national academy with a large organizational size. The business model centers on advocacy, education, and societal impact rather than commercial revenue. Partnerships with entities like Blackbaud and use of platforms such as LinkedIn and Vimeo support its outreach and operational needs. The organization targets a broad audience including engineers, policymakers, and the public. The website content and structure support these goals effectively, though direct contact information and detailed legal policies are not prominently available, which could be improved for stakeholder engagement and compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with HTTPS enabled and use of a reputable cookie consent platform (Cookiebot). No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms represents a compliance gap. Security headers were not explicitly detected in the provided data, suggesting potential for enhancement. The use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing scripts introduces a moderate tracking footprint, which is managed through consent mechanisms. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved by publishing security documentation and enhancing HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and frameworks.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Add explicit privacy policy and terms of service pages accessible from the website footer or header.
  5. Enhance HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Royal Academy of Engineering
Description
We are a charity that harnesses the power of engineering to build a sustainable society and an inclusive economy that works for everyone.
Key services
Engineering advocacy, Sustainability initiatives, Inclusive economy promotion
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Cookiebot, FontAwesome, Mmenu, AOS (Animate On Scroll), MagicScroll, Slick Carousel
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent management via Cookiebot
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Meta Platforms, Inc., Google
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism (Cookiebot).
  2. Multiple third-party analytics and marketing scripts are present.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in the provided content.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  5. WHOIS data confirms domain longevity and registration consistency.
  6. Website content is professional, relevant, and targeted to engineering and sustainability audiences.
  7. No security policy or incident response information is publicly visible.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  9. Website is well-branded and consistent in design and messaging.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and well-supported technology stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery, and various JavaScript libraries for UI enhancements. Analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Facebook Pixel are integrated with user consent managed by Cookiebot. Hosting is provided by Easyspace Ltd, a reputable UK hosting provider. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. The site is well-structured with proper meta tags and SEO optimizations. Technical risks are minimal but monitoring third-party scripts for vulnerabilities is recommended.
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 raeng.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 raeng.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.