Skip to main content

Security report for whocaresscotland.org

Who Cares? Scotland · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Who Cares? Scotland is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting care experienced people in Scotland through advocacy, helpline services, training, and community engagement. The website reflects a well-established charity with a clear mission and professional presentation. Their market position is strong within the Scottish care support sector, offering key services that empower and assist their target audience. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using modern plugins such as Yoast SEO, Elementor, and Slider Revolution. It employs Google Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA for analytics and security. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with good performance metrics. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, implements standard security headers, and uses CAPTCHA on forms to mitigate abuse. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, with consent mechanisms in place. However, explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not published, representing an area for improvement. Overall, the website demonstrates a mature digital presence with strong trust indicators and no apparent vulnerabilities. The lack of WHOIS data limits domain ownership verification but does not detract significantly from the site's credibility. Strategic recommendations include publishing security policies, incident response details, and vulnerability disclosure information to enhance transparency and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

5 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
  2. 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 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';…
  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

    • 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 whocaresscotland.org

This scan found 28 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
25
Email security
55
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
62

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 whocaresscotland.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for whocaresscotland.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

Who Cares? Scotland operates as a medium-sized non-profit focused on care experienced individuals in Scotland. Their business model centers on advocacy, support services, training, and community building. Revenue streams likely include donations, fundraising, and grants. The organization targets care experienced people and stakeholders in social care. Their partnership ecosystem includes social media channels and event collaborations. The website content and structure indicate a well-managed operation with consistent branding and clear communication of services and opportunities.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers present. Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms reduces spam and abuse risks. Privacy and cookie compliance are well implemented. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure process suggests room for maturity improvement. The organization should consider formalizing these aspects to align with best practices and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including abuse and security email addresses.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Conduct regular third-party script audits to minimize supply chain risks.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet or exceed WCAG standards for inclusivity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Who Cares? Scotland
Description
A lifetime of equality, respect and love for care experienced people
Key services
Advocacy, Helpline support, Training and resources, Events and opportunities, Membership and community engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA, Slider Revolution, Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

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 detected.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, limiting domain ownership verification.
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. Multiple contact methods including phone, email, and forms are present.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  6. No evidence of adult or questionable content.
  7. Security headers and HTTPS are properly implemented.
  8. No visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.
  9. Social media presence on Facebook and Twitter.
  10. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform with popular plugins such as Yoast SEO for search optimization, Elementor for page building, and Slider Revolution for interactive content. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are used for tracking and marketing insights. The site loads multiple minified CSS and JS files, indicating optimization efforts. Mobile responsiveness and accessibility are well addressed. Performance is moderate, with potential for further speed improvements. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly experience.
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 whocaresscotland.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 whocaresscotland.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.