Skip to main content

Security report for stgwindsor.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.stgwindsor.org is currently inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error page protected by Cloudflare's security mechanisms. The site content is blocked, providing no business or contact information, privacy policies, or interactive elements. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed query response, lacking registrar, creation, expiry, and registrant details, which raises concerns about domain transparency and legitimacy. Technically, the site loads minimal resources such as Google Fonts and Cloudflare analytics scripts but lacks SEO, accessibility, and security headers. Overall, the digital maturity is low, and the site does not provide sufficient information to assess business operations or compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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 stgwindsor.org

This scan found 24 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
42
Security headers
35
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
60

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

Due to the lack of accessible content and absence of business-related information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be either misconfigured or restricted, preventing analysis of market positioning, services, or partnerships. No contact or trust indicators are present, and the domain's WHOIS data is incomplete, limiting confidence in the entity behind the site.

Security posture

The security posture is limitedly observable due to the site's blocked status. The presence of Cloudflare WAF indicates some level of protection against attacks, but the absence of security headers and the 403 error suggest restrictive access controls that may hinder legitimate users. No vulnerabilities are directly observable, but the lack of transparency and WHOIS data is a negative indicator. Incident response and security policies are not found, and privacy compliance cannot be confirmed.

Recommendations

  1. Review and correct domain WHOIS information to ensure transparency and legitimacy.
  2. Configure website access controls to avoid unnecessary 403 Forbidden errors for legitimate visitors.
  3. Implement and publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and trust.
  4. Add security headers and ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Page shows a 403 Forbidden error with Cloudflare scripts and beacon, indicating access is blocked by Cloudflare WAF or security settings. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Fonts, Cloudflare Insights
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Cloudflare Insights
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cloudflare Insights
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error
  2. No meaningful business or contact information available on the page
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No forms or interactive elements detected
  5. Minimal external resources loaded, mostly fonts and Cloudflare analytics
  6. Site is protected or blocked by Cloudflare WAF or security rules
  7. WHOIS data is incomplete and unparseable
  8. No social media or contact links present
  9. No SEO or accessibility features detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Google Fonts and Cloudflare for hosting and analytics. The HTML content is minimal and serves only a 403 Forbidden error page with no SEO metadata or structured data. No CMS or frameworks are detected. The site is likely hosted behind Cloudflare, which is actively blocking access. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to lack of content. The site lacks accessibility features and SEO optimization, indicating technical immaturity or misconfiguration.
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 stgwindsor.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 stgwindsor.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.