Skip to main content

Security report for atreemo.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website atreemo.uk currently serves only a default IIS Windows Server start page, indicating that no active website content or business presence is established. The domain is registered with a reputable registrar, Tucows Inc, since November 2021, with a valid expiry in 2025. However, the lack of any business information, contact details, or policies on the website suggests it is either under development or abandoned. Technically, the site runs on Microsoft IIS on Windows Server, but no modern web technologies, CMS, or frameworks are detected. Security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS, security headers, and privacy compliance mechanisms. Overall, the site is not suitable for business operations in its current state and lacks trust signals.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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. 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 atreemo.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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
59

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

No business intelligence can be derived from the website content as it is a default placeholder page. The domain registration is consistent and legitimate but does not reflect an active business. No market positioning, services, or target audience information is available. There are no partnerships or subsidiaries indicated. The domain age is relatively recent, which could indicate a new venture, but no further business data is present.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal and inadequate. The absence of HTTPS and security headers exposes the site to potential risks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR or other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The default IIS page may expose server information that could be leveraged by attackers. Immediate improvements are necessary to secure the site and protect user data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure communications.
  2. Replace the default IIS start page with a fully developed website containing business content.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Include clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
IIS
Platforms
Windows Server
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website displays default IIS Windows Server start page indicating no active website content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details provided on the website.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS status available from provided data.
  5. WHOIS data shows domain registered with reputable registrar and valid expiry.
  6. No analytics, tracking, or advertising detected.
  7. No social media or external business links except Microsoft link for IIS image.
  8. Website is not optimized for mobile or accessibility.
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Microsoft IIS running on Windows Server, registered through Tucows Inc. The HTML content is minimal and static, with no CMS or modern frameworks detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features. Performance is likely moderate given the minimal content but cannot be fully assessed. No analytics or tracking technologies are present. The site is not SEO optimized and lacks meta tags beyond the basic title and charset. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and requires modernization for production use.
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 atreemo.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 atreemo.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.