Skip to main content

Security report for bakertillyiom.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website bakertillyiom.com currently serves a security verification page that uses Google Invisible reCAPTCHA to prevent automated access. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot protection mechanism blocking direct content access. Due to this, no actual business content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The technical infrastructure includes Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for security verification. However, the absence of HTTPS in the provided data and lack of security headers suggest suboptimal security posture. Privacy and cookie policies are not present, and no contact or business details are visible. Overall, the site appears to be in a blocked or restricted state, limiting comprehensive analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching bakertillyiom.com

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
48

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

Due to the content being blocked by a security verification mechanism, no business intelligence data such as company name, market position, services, or industry classification could be extracted. The lack of visible contact information and policies further limits insights into the company's operations or market presence.

Security posture

The website employs Google Invisible reCAPTCHA as a bot mitigation measure, which is a positive security practice. However, the absence of HTTPS in the provided HTML content, lack of security headers, and no visible privacy or cookie policies indicate significant gaps in security and compliance. The security verification page itself suggests a protective layer but also restricts access to legitimate users and analysts. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not available, limiting assessment of security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all website traffic.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  4. Provide visible contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
  5. Review and optimize the WAF or bot protection settings to balance security with user accessibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google Invisible reCAPTCHA, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification
  • Invisible reCAPTCHA implementation

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google Invisible reCAPTCHA.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No email addresses, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  5. Page uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection.
  6. No SEO or accessibility meta tags present.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS detected in provided data.
  8. No structured data (JSON-LD) or Open Graph metadata found.
  9. No forms collecting user data except the invisible reCAPTCHA token form.
  10. External domains are limited to CDN and Google services for scripts and styles.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for responsive design and Google Invisible reCAPTCHA for bot protection. External resources are loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains. The page is minimalistic, serving only a security verification challenge with no SEO or accessibility meta tags. Performance is likely moderate given CDN usage, but no explicit performance optimizations or analytics are detected. The lack of HTTPS and security headers represents technical debt and potential risk. The site appears to be hosted on an unknown provider with no CMS or platform identified.
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 bakertillyiom.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 bakertillyiom.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.