Skip to main content

Security report for sigrid-rausing-trust.org

The Sigrid Rausing Trust · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Sigrid Rausing Trust is a well-established philanthropic grant-making foundation based in London, founded in 1995. It focuses on supporting human rights, open societies, and environmental causes globally. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting non-profit organizations and social causes. The Trust operates with a significant endowment and a clear mission to fund impactful programs. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and cookie consent tools, ensuring a good user experience and mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, though some security headers and explicit incident response policies are absent. WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is typical and justified for this type of organization. Overall, the website is trustworthy, compliant with privacy regulations, and professionally maintained.

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

5 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 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';…
  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
    • 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 sigrid-rausing-trust.org

This scan found 23 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
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 sigrid-rausing-trust.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for sigrid-rausing-trust.org 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 Trust holds a strong market position as a philanthropic entity with a large endowment and a global grant-making footprint. Its business model centers on funding and supporting organizations aligned with human rights, environmental sustainability, and open society values. The website content and structure indicate a focus on transparency and engagement with grantees and stakeholders. Partnerships with design agencies and use of standard web technologies suggest a mature digital presence. The absence of direct contact details on the homepage may indicate a controlled communication approach. The Trust's registration as a UK charity adds to its credibility and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism that supports GDPR compliance. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of published security or incident response policies represent areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The use of third-party scripts is standard but requires ongoing monitoring to mitigate supply chain risks. The lack of a security.txt file or explicit vulnerability disclosure channel limits transparency in security incident handling.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness for security events.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve trust with security researchers.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to minimize risk from vulnerable components.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility to improve stakeholder communication and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
The Sigrid Rausing Trust
Registration number
Charity No: 1194828
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Sigrid Rausing Trust
Description
The Sigrid Rausing Trust is a grant-making foundation established in 1995 based in London. The Trust's grant-making is organised into three main programmes: Human Rights and Rule of Law; Open Societies; and The Environment. Additionally, the Gifts and Trustees' Gifts programmes support the Trust’s wider philanthropic remit.
Key services
Grant-making, Philanthropic support, Program funding in human rights, open societies, environment
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, WordPress, Google Tag Manager, CookieControl by Civic UK, SVG4Everybody, objectFitImages, LightGallery, Magnific Popup
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for analytics control

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

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 challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and focused on philanthropy and grant-making.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie consent mechanisms are in place.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on homepage; contact page likely exists but not in provided content.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for non-profits.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (WordPress) with standard plugins.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  9. Social media presence includes Twitter link.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and cookie consent tools. It employs responsive design and accessibility best practices, providing a good user experience across devices. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading times. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and social media integration. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security headers and performance tuning.
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 sigrid-rausing-trust.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 sigrid-rausing-trust.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.