Skip to main content

Security report for rhul.ac.uk

Royal Holloway, University of London · Education · United Kingdom

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in Security headers.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

Royal Holloway, University of London is a well-established higher education institution in the United Kingdom, offering a broad range of undergraduate, postgraduate, and research programs. The website targets prospective and current students, staff, and researchers, providing comprehensive information about courses, campus life, research, and university services. The institution maintains a strong market position within the UK academic sector, supported by consistent branding and professional content. The website demonstrates a mature digital presence with clear navigation, mobile optimization, and extensive use of modern tracking and marketing technologies with user consent mechanisms in place. Technically, the website employs a variety of analytics and marketing tools including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, and IBM Silverpop, indicating a sophisticated approach to user engagement and data collection. The site is well-structured with good SEO and accessibility practices, though no specific CMS or hosting provider was identified. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent controls effectively. However, there is a lack of explicit security headers and no visible security or incident response policies published on the site. The WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, but the domain is a .ac.uk academic domain consistent with the university's identity. No suspicious patterns or vulnerabilities were detected in the content. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations such as GDPR. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and providing a vulnerability disclosure channel to further improve trust and security posture.

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

1 finding 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';…

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

Keep watching rhul.ac.uk

This scan found 17 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
100
Security headers
60
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
82

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

Royal Holloway operates in the education sector, focusing on higher education services including teaching, research, and student support. Its business model revolves around tuition fees, research funding, and community engagement. The university targets students domestically and internationally, supported by dedicated recruitment and support teams. The presence of multiple intranet and applicant portals indicates a robust operational ecosystem. The university leverages partnerships with service providers for recruitment and event management. Growth indicators include active marketing campaigns, virtual experiences, and scholarship offerings. The university maintains a strong brand presence and digital footprint, positioning itself competitively within the UK higher education market.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security posture with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism that respects user privacy preferences. Tracking and marketing scripts are loaded conditionally based on consent, indicating GDPR compliance. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options is a gap that could be addressed to mitigate risks like clickjacking and MIME sniffing. No incident response or security policy pages were found, which limits transparency and preparedness communication. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved with additional headers and published policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Review and document data retention policies related to analytics and marketing data to improve privacy compliance.
  5. Continue to monitor and update third-party scripts to avoid vulnerabilities and maintain user trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Royal Holloway, University of London
Description
A community inspiring individuals to succeed.
Key services
Undergraduate courses, Postgraduate courses, Research programs, Student support and wellbeing, Campus facilities, Events and open days
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, jQuery, SearchStax, Civic Cookie Control, Pixie (AppNexus), AudienceManager, Silverpop (IBM Marketing Cloud)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of anti-CSRF tokens indicated by cookie names

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
AppNexus, DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Silverpop (IBM Marketing Cloud), SearchStax
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented
  3. Strong presence of tracking and marketing scripts with user consent
  4. Clear navigation structure with mobile optimization
  5. No exposed sensitive information or obvious security flaws in HTML
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to privacy protection or registry restrictions
  7. Official university branding and contact information present
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response page found
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack with multiple analytics and marketing tools integrated via asynchronous JavaScript, including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, and IBM Silverpop. The site uses jQuery and custom scripts for UI interactions and search functionality powered by SearchStax. Fonts are loaded from Adobe Typekit and Google Fonts, ensuring good typography. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and accessible navigation. Performance is moderate, with some potential for optimization in script loading and caching. No CMS was explicitly identified, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting details are not disclosed. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly experience with room for performance tuning and security enhancements.
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 rhul.ac.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 rhul.ac.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.