Skip to main content

Security report for amgnorthweald.com

AMG North Weald Ltd · Transportation · United Kingdom

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 3 other checks.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

AMG North Weald Ltd is a UK-based logistics company with over 50 years of experience specializing in road freight, freight forwarding, express courier services, warehousing, distribution, and bespoke project management. The company targets businesses requiring reliable and flexible logistics solutions, particularly with expertise in Swiss and Italian markets. The website is built on WordPress using modern technologies such as Bootstrap 4 and Slider Revolution, providing a professional and mobile-optimized user experience. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit incident response policies. The absence of WHOIS data and domain registration inconsistencies raise concerns about domain legitimacy, warranting further verification. Overall, the site presents a trustworthy business front with room for improvement in security transparency and domain registration clarity.

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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  3. Network security

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

    • 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

  4. 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

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

Keep watching amgnorthweald.com

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. 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
27
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
65
Average
44

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

The company positions itself as a specialist logistics provider with a long-standing history and industry certifications (BIFA, FIATA, UKWA, RHA) that enhance credibility. Their business model focuses on service provision in transportation and supply chain logistics, targeting SMEs and manufacturing sectors. The website content and structure support clear communication of services and contact channels, indicating a customer-centric approach. The lack of analytics and tracking tools suggests a privacy-conscious or low-marketing digital strategy. The domain registration anomaly is a notable risk factor in business credibility.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and cookie consent banners, indicating baseline security and privacy compliance. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No visible vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are present, limiting transparency in security management. The WordPress platform and plugins used are common but require regular updates to mitigate vulnerabilities. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or insecure forms was found. Security posture is moderate but could be enhanced with additional controls and policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection) to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish explicit security policy and incident response information, including contact channels for reporting vulnerabilities.
  3. Investigate and resolve domain WHOIS registration issues to improve legitimacy and trust.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  5. Consider adding a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to encourage responsible reporting.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
AMG North Weald Limited
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AMG North Weald Ltd
Description
AMG North Weald Ltd is a logistics company specializing in road freight, freight forwarding, express courier services, warehousing & distribution, and bespoke project management. They have over 50 years of experience and focus on flexible, client-driven logistics solutions.
Key services
Road Freight, Freight Forwarding, Express Courier Services, Warehousing & Distribution, Project Management
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Bootstrap 4, Slider Revolution, Contact Form 7, WPBakery Page Builder, Google Fonts, FontAwesome
Frameworks
Bootstrap 4
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. No WAF or security blocking detected
  3. WHOIS data is missing or invalid, raising legitimacy concerns
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are implemented with consent mechanisms
  5. Contact information is clearly presented with company domain emails and phone numbers
  6. Use of multiple WordPress plugins and modern frontend technologies
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response info found
  9. Certifications and industry memberships displayed as trust signals
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap 4, jQuery, and popular plugins like Slider Revolution and Contact Form 7. The site is mobile responsive and uses Google Fonts and FontAwesome for styling and icons. Performance is moderate with some heavy slider elements. Accessibility is basic but functional. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. No advanced analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from performance optimization and enhanced accessibility features.
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 amgnorthweald.com. 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 amgnorthweald.com.

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.