Skip to main content

Security report for adarchitects.co.uk

AD Architects · Healthcare · United Kingdom

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

AD Architects is a UK-based architectural firm specializing primarily in healthcare architecture, with additional focus on education, community, and residential sectors. The company operates from Hertford and London offices and is part of the larger Sweco group. Their website presents a professional image with clear descriptions of their services, project showcases, and a commitment to sustainability and BIM technologies. The firm targets healthcare providers, educational institutions, and private clients seeking specialized architectural solutions. Their market position is that of an established regional player with a niche focus on healthcare architecture. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and uses common plugins such as Yoast SEO and AddToAny for social sharing. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation and SEO practices. However, some technical improvements could be made, such as implementing security headers and activating Google Analytics tracking properly. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring secure communication. From a security perspective, the website shows a good posture with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms are areas for improvement, especially for GDPR compliance. The WHOIS data query failed due to the use of a subdomain in the lookup, but the website content and contact information strongly indicate legitimacy. No signs of malicious activity or suspicious content were found. Overall, AD Architects presents a credible and professional online presence with room for technical and compliance enhancements. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy compliance, and analytics configuration would strengthen their digital maturity and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

8 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. 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"

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

Keep watching adarchitects.co.uk

This scan found 27 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
65
Average
46

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

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 adarchitects.co.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for adarchitects.co.uk 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

AD Architects operates in a specialized niche of healthcare architecture within the UK market, leveraging its affiliation with Sweco to enhance credibility. Their business model focuses on delivering architectural design services with an emphasis on sustainability and BIM integration. The company targets institutional clients such as NHS trusts, universities, and private healthcare providers. Their project portfolio and certifications like RIBA mentoring and ConstructionLine demonstrate industry recognition. The firm maintains active social media channels to engage with stakeholders and promote their expertise. Growth indicators include a well-maintained website with recent content updates and a clear sector focus. Partnerships with design agencies and technology providers support their operational capabilities. The absence of direct e-commerce or transactional services suggests a service-based revenue model reliant on project commissions and consultancy.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring encrypted data transmission. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the HTML source. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the defense-in-depth posture. The absence of a cookie consent banner and explicit cookie policy may expose the company to GDPR compliance risks. The Google Analytics plugin is installed but not configured, indicating incomplete tracking setup. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could hinder transparency and preparedness. Overall, the security maturity is moderate with good baseline protections but lacking advanced controls and compliance mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent mechanism and detailed cookie policy to comply with GDPR and improve user transparency.
  3. Configure Google Analytics properly or remove the plugin if not used to avoid unnecessary code and potential privacy issues.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to demonstrate commitment to security and facilitate reporting.
  5. Regularly audit and update all third-party plugins and libraries to mitigate risks from vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
AD Architects
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AD Architects
Description
AD Architects, Hertford, Hertfordshire, UK | NHS & private healthcare | CREATING BUILDINGS THAT WORK FOR YOU
Key services
Healthcare architecture, Building Information Modelling (BIM), Sustainability consulting, Project leadership and advisory
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.11.1, Yoast SEO plugin, AddToAny sharing plugin, Google Fonts (Montserrat), WordPress 6.9.4
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
AddToAny sharing plugin
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured
  2. Content is focused on healthcare architecture and related sectors
  3. No signs of adult or questionable content
  4. No visible security headers detected in HTML source
  5. Google Analytics plugin present but not configured
  6. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy found
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on subdomain rather than root domain
  8. Social media presence on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube
  9. Contact information clearly provided with phone, email, and physical addresses
  10. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.9.4, utilizing plugins such as Yoast SEO for search engine optimization and AddToAny for social sharing. The front-end uses jQuery 1.11.1, which is an older version and could be updated for performance and security improvements. Google Fonts (Montserrat) is used for typography. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and user experience. Performance is moderate, with image caching and lazy loading implemented. No advanced frameworks or custom platforms were detected. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. The site lacks some modern security headers and cookie consent mechanisms, which are recommended for compliance and security best practices. Overall, the technical infrastructure is stable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 adarchitects.co.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 adarchitects.co.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.