Skip to main content

Is nafc.org.au a Scam? Security Check Results - National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) Reviews

nafc.org.au favicon

Is nafc.org.au Safe? Security Analysis for National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC)

Check if nafc.org.au is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

GovernmentAustraliamedium
WordPress 6.2.7PHP (implied by WordPress)jQuery 3.6.4Bootstrap 2.3.2Font Awesome 4.7.0+4 more
Analyzed 9/7/2025Completed 2:11:17 PM
54
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

The National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) is a government-affiliated organization coordinating aerial firefighting resources across Australia. It operates a fleet of specialized aircraft to support state and territory emergency services in combating bushfires. The organization is funded primarily by Australian government grants and works closely with AFAC, the national council for fire and emergency services in Australia and New Zealand. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand identity aligned with its government and non-profit sector role. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with common plugins and frameworks, providing moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, but lacks advanced DNS security and published security policies. Overall, the site is trustworthy and serves its target audience effectively.

Detected Technologies

WordPress 6.2.7PHP (implied by WordPress)jQuery 3.6.4Bootstrap 2.3.2Font Awesome 4.7.0Google Analytics (gtag.js)MonsterInsights pluginPrettyPhotoResponsiveSlides

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

NAFC holds a strong market position as the national coordinator for aerial firefighting in Australia, leveraging partnerships with government agencies and industry experts. Its business model is cooperative and government-funded, focusing on resource sharing, procurement, and safety standards. The organization benefits from Australian ownership of the fleet and international partnerships for seasonal aircraft availability. The website supports transparency and outreach but lacks direct contact information, which may limit immediate engagement. The partnership with AFAC enhances credibility and operational reach.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly configured, and cookie consent is implemented, indicating awareness of privacy requirements. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers reduces the overall security robustness. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which could hinder trust and preparedness. The use of third-party plugins and analytics introduces potential risks that require ongoing management. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC)

Description:

The National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) provides a cooperative national arrangement for the provision of aerial firefighting resources for combating bushfires. NAFC coordinates the procurement of a fleet of highly specialised aircraft that are readily available for use by state and territory emergency service and land management agencies across Australia.

Key Services:
Coordination and procurement of aerial firefighting aircraftNational protocols and systems development for aerial firefightingSharing of aerial firefighting resources among Australian states and territoriesResearch and development in aviation safety and firefighting effectiveness
Content Quality:

good

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
WordPress 6.2.7PHP (implied by WordPress)jQuery 3.6.4Bootstrap 2.3.2Font Awesome 4.7.0Google Analytics (gtag.js)MonsterInsights pluginPrettyPhotoResponsiveSlides
Frameworks:
Bootstrap
Platforms:
WordPress CMS
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
65/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced with Google Analytics configured for forceSSL
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Google Analytics
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:basic

Advertising & Marketing

Marketing Tools:
MonsterInsights
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:good
User Experience:good
Content Relevance:good
Navigation Clarity:good
Professionalism:good
Trustworthiness:high

Key Observations

1

Website uses WordPress CMS with standard plugins and themes.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

30/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

Sensitive data may be cached

LOW

Cache-Control header should include "no-store" for sensitive pages

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

68/100
Score

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Data Protection Officer mentioned

LOW

Large organizations may need to designate a DPO under GDPR

Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

MEDIUM

Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy85% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
phone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

2/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

Critical sector without clear security compliance

HIGH

Detected sectors: energy, transport, digital

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

75/100
Score

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security
SPF Details
Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:13.211.212.186 ip4:203.46.109.168 ip4:203.46.109.167 ip4:52.158.152.246 include:amazonses.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~all
DNS Lookups:4/10
Policy:~all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:selector1(1416-bit rsa)
Selector:selector2(1416-bit rsa)
Selector:mail(1296-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:AFAC.Admin@afacau.onmicrosoft.com

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

77/100
Score

Weak Protocols Supported

HIGH

Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

OCSP Stapling Not Enabled

LOW

OCSP stapling improves performance and privacy

Certificate Transparency Not Implemented

LOW

Certificate is not logged in Certificate Transparency logs

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 3 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Protocol Support

TLSv1.2TLSv1.3TLSv1.1

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

65/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

Domain Transfer Lock Not Enabled

MEDIUM

Domain can be transferred without authorization

Domain Delete Lock Not Enabled

LOW

Domain can be deleted without additional verification

DMARC Policy Set to None

LOW

DMARC is configured but not enforcing any policy

Domain Registration Details

Protection Level
noneDNSSEC OFF
Suspicious Indicators Detected
  • No domain protection locks enabled

DNS Records

A Records:13.211.212.186
Name Servers:
ns1.melbourneit.net
ns2.melbourneit.net
ns3.melbourneit.net
ns4.melbourneit.net
MX Records:
1: nafc-org-au.mail.protection.outlook.com
SOA:Serial: 2025042803, TTL: 172800s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:133ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:13.211.212.186 ip4:203.46.109.168 ip4:203.46.109.167 ip4:52.158.152.246 include:amazonses.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

40/100
Score

Service Exposed: SSH

MEDIUM

Port 22 (SSH) is publicly accessible - SSH - Secure but can be brute-forced

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is built on a mature WordPress platform using a combination of Bootstrap, jQuery, and Font Awesome for UI and functionality. Google Analytics is integrated via MonsterInsights for visitor tracking. The site loads with moderate speed and is mobile optimized with responsive design elements. However, the use of an older Bootstrap version (2.3.2) and multiple plugins may indicate some technical debt. No advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries were detected. Hosting details are limited but the domain registrar is Melbourne IT, a reputable Australian provider. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
Analyze Another Website