Skip to main content

Security report for swanadvocacy.org.uk

South West Advocacy Network · Non-profit · United Kingdom

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

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

South West Advocacy Network (SWAN) is a well-established UK-based non-profit charity founded in 1999, providing independent advocacy services across the South of England. Their mission focuses on supporting marginalized and vulnerable populations, including LGBTQIA+ and multicultural communities, ensuring their voices are heard and rights respected. The organization offers a range of statutory and generic advocacy services, including mental health and capacity advocacy, self-advocacy workshops, and specialist support for children and young people. SWAN maintains a strong regional presence with detailed service coverage in multiple counties.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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. 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 swanadvocacy.org.uk

This scan found 26 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
27
Security headers
25
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
59

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

SWAN operates as a medium-sized charity with a clear focus on social services and advocacy. Their business model is non-profit, relying on statutory contracts and community funding. The website demonstrates a professional digital presence with integrated social media channels and accessible content. Their market position is solid within the regional advocacy sector, supported by statutory service delivery and community engagement. The organization shows commitment to inclusivity and accessibility, leveraging technology such as WordPress CMS and accessibility plugins. No direct commercial partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with good SSL configuration and security headers, indicating a solid baseline security posture. Use of Google reCAPTCHA and accessibility tools like ReciteMe enhance security and usability. However, explicit security policies, incident response plans, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent, which could be improved to enhance transparency and preparedness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is good for a non-profit organization but could benefit from formalized security documentation and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  2. Implement a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and ePrivacy regulations.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance monitoring and logging capabilities to detect and respond to security incidents promptly.

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
South West Advocacy Network
Registration number
06599429
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
South West Advocacy Network
Description
Founded in 1999, SWAN is an independent advocacy charity working across the South of England. They provide high-quality, independent advocacy services supporting diverse communities including LGBTQIA+ and multicultural groups. Their services are free, confidential, and non-judgmental.
Key services
Independent Mental Health Advocacy (IMHA), Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA), Care Act Advocacy, Specialist Advocacy for Children & Young People, Self Advocacy Workshops, Vulnerable Adults Independent Advocacy
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Analytics, Recaptcha, ReciteMe accessibility plugin, Instagram Feed plugin, Contact Form 7, Digital Signature for Contact Form 7, Login With Ajax, Popup Maker, Select2
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (e.g., ReciteMe for accessibility)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established UK charity focused on advocacy services.
  2. Content is comprehensive and professionally presented.
  3. Multiple regional service areas covered with detailed maps and descriptions.
  4. Social media integration primarily via Instagram and Facebook.
  5. Use of WordPress CMS with common plugins for forms, accessibility, and social feeds.
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content or domains.
  7. Security posture is good but lacks explicit security policy and incident response information.
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present but cookie consent mechanism is not evident.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  10. Contact information is clearly presented with phone, email, and contact forms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Analytics, and various plugins for forms, social media feeds, and accessibility. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. The hosting provider is 123-Reg Limited, a reputable UK registrar and hosting provider. The site uses standard web technologies and best practices but could improve performance and security documentation. 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 swanadvocacy.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 swanadvocacy.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.