Skip to main content

Security report for austinjohninteriors.co.uk

Austin John Ltd · Real Estate · United Kingdom

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 3 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Austin John Ltd is a small UK-based architectural and interior design firm founded in 2022, serving Lincolnshire and surrounding regions. The company offers comprehensive design services including architectural design, planning consultations, building regulations drawings, and 3D visualisation. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear contact information and social media presence. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using modern plugins and themes, optimized for mobile devices with moderate performance. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced, though lacking some security headers and published policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the domain registration aligns well with the business age and claims, indicating legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

7 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 austinjohninteriors.co.uk

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
34
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
47

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

Austin John Ltd positions itself as a regional leader in architectural and interior design services, targeting homeowners and developers seeking bespoke design solutions. Their business model focuses on personalized service with in-house consultants managing projects from concept to completion. The company leverages digital marketing through social media and Google Ads tracking, indicating a moderate digital maturity. The absence of cookie consent and security policies suggests areas for compliance improvement. The company’s growth potential is supported by a clear market niche and professional online presence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good baseline security posture with HTTPS and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate certain attack vectors. There is no published security or incident response policy, which limits transparency and preparedness. The use of up-to-date WordPress plugins reduces vulnerability risk, but ongoing maintenance is critical. Privacy compliance gaps, especially regarding cookie consent, present regulatory risks. Overall, the security maturity is moderate with room for improvement in policy publication and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Add a cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and ePrivacy Directive requirements.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  4. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by documenting data retention policies and user data handling practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Austin John Ltd
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Austin John Ltd
Description
Austin John Ltd are leading Architectural Designers and Interior Designers working on projects in Lincolnshire, Rutland, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and beyond. They offer architectural and interior design services including extensions, renovations, conversions, new builds, planning services, and 3D visualisation.
Key services
Architectural Design, Interior Design, Planning Consultations and Advice, Consultation and Submission of Applications, Drawings for Building Regulations, 3D Visualisation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Smart Slider 3, SiteOrigin Panels, GeneratePress theme, FontAwesome, Google Fonts
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Ads (AW-16622525645)
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. Clear and multiple contact methods including phone, email, and contact form.
  3. No cookie policy or consent mechanism found, which is a compliance gap.
  4. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  5. Use of modern WordPress plugins and themes with good mobile optimization.
  6. Social media presence is strong with multiple platforms linked.
  7. Google Ads tracking present but no aggressive advertising detected.
  8. WHOIS data is transparent and consistent with business claims.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using GeneratePress theme and popular plugins like Smart Slider 3 and SiteOrigin Panels. It uses Google Fonts and FontAwesome for styling and icons. The site loads moderately fast with responsive design optimized for mobile devices. Analytics and marketing tools include Google Tag Manager and Google Ads tracking. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries. The technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security headers and privacy compliance features to reduce risk and improve user trust.
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 austinjohninteriors.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 austinjohninteriors.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.