Skip to main content

Security report for riba.org.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The analyzed website for domain riba.org.uk is currently a placeholder 'For Sale' page served by a domain parking service (forsale.spaceship-cdn.com). The domain is registered to Jonathan Gregory t/a isurveyor.com, a reseller, and not the official Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) organization. The website lacks any meaningful business content, contact information, privacy or cookie policies, and security measures such as HTTPS or security headers. This indicates the domain is not actively used by the official entity and is likely available for purchase. The technical infrastructure is minimal, relying on a CDN for static content delivery, with no detected analytics or tracking. Security posture is poor due to lack of HTTPS and security best practices. Overall, the site is not trustworthy or professional in its current state.

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

6 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

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  2. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching riba.org.uk

This scan found 22 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
72
Security headers
85
Email security
40
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
68

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 riba.org.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for riba.org.uk right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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 domain appears to be held by a domain reseller rather than the official RIBA organization. There is no evidence of business operations, services, or organizational information on the site. The domain age (created in 2020) is inconsistent with the long-established history of RIBA, suggesting this is a secondary or parked domain. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or business relationships are evident. The site targets domain buyers rather than end users or customers. No revenue streams or market positioning can be inferred from the content.

Security posture

The website lacks HTTPS, security headers, and any visible security policies or incident response contacts. No forms or input fields are present, reducing attack surface but also indicating no active user engagement. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The WHOIS data shows the domain is registered by a third party unrelated to the official organization, which raises concerns about legitimacy. No vulnerabilities or malware were detected in the provided data, but the lack of security controls is a significant risk if the domain is used in the future.

Recommendations

  1. Secure the domain with HTTPS and implement strong SSL/TLS configuration.
  2. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR.
  3. Add clear contact information and security incident response details.
  4. Remove placeholder content and deploy official organizational website content.
  5. Implement security headers and conduct regular security audits.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website content is a placeholder 'For Sale' page indicating the domain is for sale.
Key services
domain sale
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Spaceship CDN
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is a placeholder 'For Sale' page served by a domain parking service.
  2. No meaningful business or organizational content present.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or security policies available.
  5. WHOIS data indicates domain is registered by a reseller, not the official entity.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  8. No forms or interactive elements present.
  9. No social media or external business links found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on a CDN domain (forsale.spaceship-cdn.com) serving a static placeholder page. No CMS or frameworks are detected. The site uses minimal external resources and no analytics or tracking scripts. Performance is moderate due to CDN usage but content is minimal. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO is poor due to lack of meta tags and meaningful content. The domain registration is recent and inconsistent with the official organization's history, indicating potential technical debt if the domain is acquired and repurposed.
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 riba.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 riba.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.