Skip to main content

Security report for wikimedia.org.uk

Wikimedia UK · Non-profit · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Wikimedia UK is a well-established UK charity founded in 2005, dedicated to promoting open access to knowledge and supporting the Wikimedia movement. The organization operates primarily in the non-profit sector, focusing on education, cultural partnerships, community engagement, and advocacy for open knowledge. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting a broad audience including volunteers, educational institutions, and the general public interested in free knowledge. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins and tools such as Yoast SEO and Smart Slider 3, hosted by Fasthosts Internet Ltd. It demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although there is room for improvement in security headers and explicit vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and privacy compliance evident through a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism. Contact information is clearly provided, including email, phone, and physical address, enhancing business credibility. No critical security issues or content safety concerns were detected, and the domain registration is consistent with the organization's profile, indicating high legitimacy and trustworthiness.

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

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. 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

  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 wikimedia.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
67
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
65

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

Wikimedia UK holds a strong market position as the UK charity supporting Wikimedia projects and open knowledge initiatives. Their business model is non-profit, relying on donations, memberships, and partnerships with cultural and educational institutions. The organization benefits from a robust partnership ecosystem and demonstrates growth through community engagement and educational programs. Their digital presence supports their mission with clear calls to action for donations and membership. The website's content and structure support their advocacy and outreach efforts effectively, positioning them as a credible and authoritative entity in the open knowledge space.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring secure communications. Privacy and cookie policies are implemented with user consent mechanisms, aligning with GDPR requirements. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and a security.txt file indicates areas for enhancement. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which could be improved to strengthen security transparency. Overall, the security posture is solid for a non-profit organization, with no detected vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information to support timely reporting and handling of security issues.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance data retention and privacy policy details to further align with GDPR and best privacy practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Wikimedia UK
Registration number
6741827
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Wikimedia UK
Description
Wikimedia UK is the UK charity for the global Wikimedia movement, promoting open access to knowledge as a fundamental right and driver for social and economic development.
Key services
Community training and engagement, Educational programs, Cultural partnerships, Advocacy for open knowledge, Grant funding and support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Smart Slider 3, Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Swiper.js
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • Privacy policy and trust & safety page

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Mailchimp
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Strong focus on open knowledge and community engagement.
  3. Clear contact information and multiple trust indicators.
  4. Good privacy and cookie compliance with visible consent mechanism.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  6. No signs of security blocking or content restrictions.
  7. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress platform with well-known plugins such as Yoast SEO and Smart Slider 3, indicating a modern and maintainable tech stack. Hosting by Fasthosts Internet Ltd provides reliable infrastructure. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. SEO is well addressed through meta tags, structured data (JSON-LD), and Open Graph tags. The use of Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics supports marketing and analytics needs but should be balanced with privacy considerations. Technical debt appears low, though improvements in security headers and explicit vulnerability management would reduce risk and improve resilience.
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 wikimedia.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 wikimedia.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.