Skip to main content

Security report for bpgas.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.bpgas.co.uk appears to be a placeholder or parked domain with minimal content primarily consisting of consent management scripts and advertising iframes. There is no visible business information, contact details, or meaningful content describing any company or services. The domain WHOIS lookup failed with an error indicating the domain is invalid per Nominet UK rules, suggesting the domain may not be properly registered or is misconfigured. Technically, the site uses a Consent Management Platform to handle GDPR compliance, but lacks security headers and visible SSL configuration details. The presence of an external iframe from a suspicious domain raises concerns about ad injection or compromised content. Overall, the site has poor content quality, minimal privacy compliance, and low business credibility.

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. 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.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

  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

  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 bpgas.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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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 lack of business information, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The site does not provide contact information or company details, and no certifications or trust indicators are present. The domain's invalid WHOIS status further undermines credibility. The site appears to be used for advertising or domain parking rather than an active business operation.

Security posture

The security posture is weak with no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers. The use of a Consent Management Platform is a positive indicator for GDPR compliance, but the lack of privacy policy and terms of service is a compliance gap. The suspicious external iframe could introduce security risks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. Overall, the site is at risk and requires significant improvements to meet security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Register and validate the domain properly with Nominet UK to ensure legitimacy.
  2. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service documents.
  3. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and configure security headers.
  4. Remove or audit third-party iframes and scripts from suspicious domains to prevent security risks.
  5. Add clear business contact information and improve website content quality to enhance credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, ConsentManager CMP
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Consent Management Platform for GDPR compliance

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
ConsentManager
Tracking pixels
ConsentManager tracking pixel
Marketing tools
ConsentManager CMP
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly consists of consent management scripts and ad iframes.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service found.
  4. Presence of external iframe from suspicious domain rapidresultsearch.com suggests possible ad injection or compromised content.
  5. No WHOIS data available; domain appears invalid or improperly registered.
  6. No security headers or SSL configuration details provided.
  7. Consent management platform is implemented indicating some GDPR compliance effort.
  8. No forms or user input fields detected.
  9. No social media or contact emails found.
  10. Website appears to be a placeholder or parked domain with advertising content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website relies heavily on JavaScript and ConsentManager CMP scripts for cookie consent management. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The site loads multiple external scripts and iframes, including from suspicious domains. Performance appears slow due to multiple external calls and ad content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic at best. SEO optimization is poor with no meta tags or structured data present. The technical infrastructure lacks modern best practices and requires modernization and security hardening.
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 bpgas.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 bpgas.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.