Skip to main content

Security report for bpfroadsafety.co.uk

BPF Road Marking · Transportation · United Kingdom

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

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

BPF Road Marking is a Northern Ireland-based company specializing in road marking and painting services with over 40 years of experience, established in 1978 as part of the BPF Group. The company offers a wide range of services including car park marking, road marking, junction marking, and specialized markings such as electric vehicle bays and social distancing markings. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence targeting businesses and organizations requiring road marking solutions in Northern Ireland. Technically, the website is built on the Webflow CMS platform, integrating Google Analytics and Zoho SalesIQ for analytics and customer engagement. The site is mobile optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but lacks visible security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to a domain naming rules error, which raises some concerns about domain registration legitimacy, although the website content and business information appear credible. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and functional but would benefit from improved privacy compliance and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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 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

  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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching bpfroadsafety.co.uk

This scan found 25 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
57
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
61

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 holds a strong market position in Northern Ireland's road marking sector, leveraging decades of experience and a broad service portfolio. Its business model focuses on service provision to commercial and public sector clients. The website indicates a medium-sized enterprise with a clear parent company (BPF Group) but no subsidiaries listed. The embedded Facebook page and testimonials suggest active customer engagement and trust-building efforts. The use of modern web technologies and marketing tools like Google Analytics and Zoho SalesIQ indicates a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the absence of privacy and security policies may expose the company to compliance risks. No suspicious or unrelated domains were found linked to the site, and the company maintains a focused digital footprint.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates standard analytics and customer engagement scripts. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No forms were detected, reducing the attack surface from input vectors, but also limiting direct user data collection. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates a gap in GDPR compliance, which is critical given the company's UK location. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which could hinder timely security issue reporting and resolution. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, formal policies, and incident response mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Establish and communicate an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure process to improve security readiness.
  4. Verify and correct domain registration details to resolve WHOIS inconsistencies and improve trustworthiness.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure minimal privacy impact and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BPF Road Marking
Description
BPF Road Marking have undertaken numerous car park contracts, and we are happy to quote for line marking of any car parking area irrespective of size. Established in 1978 as part of the BPF Group, it is a leading road marking company in Northern Ireland with over 40 years' experience.
Key services
Car Park Marking, Road Marking, Junction Marking, One Way System Installation, Line Remove & Replace, Motorway Rib Line, Custom Markings, External Health & Safety Markings, Area Demarcation, Playground Markings
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Zoho SalesIQ, jQuery, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Webflow CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by external resource URLs (https)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Zoho SalesIQ
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found on the site.
  3. Contact information is clearly presented in header and footer.
  4. No security policies or incident response info available.
  5. WHOIS data is missing or invalid due to domain naming rules error.
  6. Website uses modern Webflow CMS and integrates Google Analytics and Zoho SalesIQ.
  7. No forms detected in the HTML content provided.
  8. Social media presence includes Facebook page embedded.
  9. No visible security headers detected in HTML content.
  10. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Webflow CMS platform, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Fonts, jQuery, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Zoho SalesIQ for live chat and customer engagement. The site is hosted on Webflow's CDN, ensuring reasonable performance and availability. The design is responsive and mobile-friendly with good navigation clarity. However, no explicit accessibility features were detected beyond basic standards. SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data present. No forms were found, indicating limited direct user data collection. The site lacks visible security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which are technical debt areas. The WHOIS data is missing or invalid, which may indicate a domain registration issue that should be addressed to avoid potential operational 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 bpfroadsafety.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 bpfroadsafety.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.