Skip to main content

Security report for samaritans.org

Samaritans · Non-profit · United Kingdom

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

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Samaritans is a well-established UK-based non-profit organization dedicated to providing emotional support and suicide prevention services. The website reflects a strong commitment to accessibility, privacy, and user engagement, targeting individuals in need of mental health support. Their market position is solid within the non-profit sector, with key services including helpline support and community outreach. Technically, the website employs modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager and OneTrust for consent management, ensuring compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. The site is mobile-optimized and designed with accessibility in mind, providing a positive user experience. Security posture is robust with HTTPS enforced and consent mechanisms in place, although explicit security headers could be more visible. Overall, the domain appears legitimate despite the lack of WHOIS data, likely due to privacy protection. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security header transparency and establishing a public vulnerability disclosure policy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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 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

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

Keep watching samaritans.org

This scan found 20 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
77
Security headers
50
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
77

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

Samaritans operates as a large non-profit entity focused on mental health and suicide prevention in the UK. Their business model revolves around charitable donations and community support services. The organization leverages partnerships for fundraising and employs digital marketing tools to engage donors and volunteers. Their competitive advantage lies in their long-standing reputation and comprehensive support services. The website's integration with fundraising platforms and consent management tools indicates a mature digital presence. Growth indicators include active social media channels and a clear focus on privacy compliance. The partnership ecosystem includes fundraising platforms and analytics providers, supporting their operational and outreach goals.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, cookie consent banners, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. Use of third-party scripts is controlled, but continuous monitoring is recommended to mitigate risks from external dependencies. The absence of explicit security headers in the HTML source suggests room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected. Compliance with GDPR is evident through privacy policies and data protection officer contact information. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly documented, which could be enhanced to improve transparency and trust. Overall, the security maturity is good for a non-profit organization, balancing user privacy and operational needs.

Recommendations

  1. Publish explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against clickjacking and MIME sniffing.
  2. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance incident response readiness by providing clear contact channels for security concerns.
  5. Continue to invest in privacy compliance and user consent mechanisms to maintain trust and regulatory adherence.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Samaritans
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Samaritans
Description
Samaritans works to make sure there’s always someone there for anyone who needs someone.
Key services
Emotional support helpline, Suicide prevention, Community outreach, Fundraising
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Consent Management, Fundraise Up widget
Frameworks
OneTrust Consent Framework
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of integrity attribute on some scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Marketing tools
Fundraise Up
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained
  2. Strong focus on privacy and consent compliance
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity
  4. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to privacy protection or query error
  5. Use of multiple third-party services for analytics and fundraising
  6. Clear navigation and accessible content for target audience
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for cookie consent management, indicating a focus on privacy and data governance. The presence of Fundraise Up scripts supports online donation capabilities. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and SEO practices, contributing to a positive user experience. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple third-party integrations. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Technical risks are minimal but include dependency on external scripts and the need for explicit security header implementation. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the organization's mission effectively.
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 samaritans.org. 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 samaritans.org.

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.