Skip to main content

Security report for thameschase.org.uk

Thames Chase Trust · Non-profit · United Kingdom

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Thames Chase Trust operates as a non-profit organization dedicated to the regeneration and preservation of the Thames Chase Community Forest in the UK. With over 30 years of experience, it engages local communities through volunteering, nature activities, and health and wellbeing programs. The website reflects a well-established community trust with a clear mission and target audience focused on families, volunteers, and nature enthusiasts. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript libraries, responsive design, and font services, ensuring a good user experience across devices. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though there is room for improvement in security headers and incident response transparency. The WHOIS lookup failed due to querying the subdomain rather than the domain, but the domain appears legitimate and consistent with the organization's history. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  4. 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

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

Keep watching thameschase.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. 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
57
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
68
Average
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

The organization positions itself as a key player in environmental and community regeneration within its local UK region. Its business model is non-profit, relying on community engagement, volunteering, and support schemes. The website indicates active outreach through social media and event bookings. Revenue streams likely include donations, fundraising, and supporter schemes. The target customer segment is local residents, families, and environmental volunteers. The presence of a cookie consent banner and privacy policy indicates awareness of regulatory compliance. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed but includes social media platforms and ticketing services. Strategic observations suggest a stable organization with a focused mission and moderate digital maturity.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with enforced HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms. However, no explicit security headers were detected in the HTML content, and there is no visible security policy or incident response contact information. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the source. The absence of a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy limits transparency. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a non-profit informational site but could be enhanced by adding security headers, formal policies, and incident response contacts to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by detailing data retention policies and user rights more explicitly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Thames Chase Trust
Description
The Thames Chase Trust aims to make the Thames Chase Community Forest an inspirational example of landscape regeneration. It provides services related to nature, wildlife, health and wellbeing, and community engagement.
Key services
Landscape regeneration, Community volunteering, Nature and wildlife activities, Health and wellbeing programs, Events and educational activities
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, ResponsiveSlides.js, Typekit Fonts, TermsFeed Cookie Consent
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via DoubleClick)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (implied by DoubleClick script)
Marketing tools
TermsFeed Cookie Consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Content is focused on community forest and environmental regeneration.
  3. No forms detected on homepage; contact form likely on separate contact page.
  4. Social media presence on Twitter and Facebook.
  5. Cookie consent implemented with clear user options.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response info found.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on subdomain rather than domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a custom or unknown CMS with modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery and ResponsiveSlides.js for UI components. Fonts are served via Adobe Typekit. Cookie consent is managed by TermsFeed scripts. The site is mobile responsive and includes accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA roles. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics and consent scripts. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from CMS identification and performance optimization.
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 thameschase.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 thameschase.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.