Skip to main content

Security report for bmjarchitects.co.uk

Boswell Mitchell & Johnston · Healthcare · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

BMJ Architects, officially Boswell Mitchell & Johnston, is a well-established UK architectural practice specializing in healthcare, sciences research & technology, and higher education sectors. With a history dating back to 1911, the firm positions itself as an award-winning and user-centered design service provider, offering architecture, master planning, and technical advisory roles. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting institutional clients in the UK and related sectors. Technically, the website is built on the Wix platform, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries and polyfills to ensure compatibility and performance. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a good user experience, although SEO and accessibility features are basic. The hosting and infrastructure are managed by Wix, with no detected blocking or WAF interference. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration but lacks explicit security headers and privacy/cookie policies, which are important for compliance and user trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable due to domain naming rules violations, which raises some concerns about domain legitimacy, although the website content and structured data suggest a legitimate business. Overall, the site presents a credible and professional business front but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security headers, and clearer WHOIS information to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

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

6 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 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching bmjarchitects.co.uk

This scan found 23 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
59
Security headers
40
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
67

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

BMJ Architects operates in a niche market of architectural services focused on healthcare, education, and research facilities. Their long-standing history and award-winning status provide competitive advantages in trust and reputation. The business model centers on professional services with revenue likely derived from project contracts and consultancy. The target customers are institutional clients such as hospitals, universities, and research centers. The website indicates moderate digital maturity with room for growth in privacy compliance and security practices. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the website content or linked domains.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or sensitive data exposure. However, the absence of security headers like Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR. Incident response information and security contact channels are not provided, limiting readiness for security events. The use of third-party scripts such as Sentry for error monitoring is noted but appears well-managed. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be significantly improved with standard best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Add essential security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear security incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from vulnerable libraries.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and meet legal standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Boswell Mitchell & Johnston
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Boswell Mitchell & Johnston
Description
BMJ Architects is an award winning architectural practice with extensive experience in healthcare, sciences research & technology and higher education. They are one of the UK’s longest established architectural firms having been in practice since 1911. They provide a user centred design service in architecture and master planning and specialise in the roles of technical advisors and principal designers.
Key services
Architecture, Master planning, Technical advisory, Principal design
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Wix.com Website Builder, JavaScript, Sentry (error monitoring), Core-js polyfills, Focus-within polyfill, Intl Segmenter polyfill
Frameworks
Wix Thunderbolt
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry (error monitoring)
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with modern JavaScript and polyfills for compatibility.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. Contact information is present in structured data but no visible contact forms or emails in HTML.
  4. No security headers detected in provided data; HTTPS is enabled.
  5. No signs of malware or phishing.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming rules violation, which is unusual and warrants further investigation.
  7. Content is professional and relevant to architectural services in healthcare and education sectors.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, leveraging its Thunderbolt rendering engine and various polyfills for browser compatibility. The tech stack includes modern JavaScript libraries and error monitoring via Sentry. Hosting is managed by Wix, ensuring reliable uptime and SSL support. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, especially in SEO and accessibility. The site is mobile-optimized and uses structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine understanding. Technical debt appears low due to platform-managed infrastructure, but improvements in security headers and privacy compliance are needed to reduce risks.
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 bmjarchitects.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 bmjarchitects.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.