Skip to main content

Security report for brian-cox.co.uk

Brian Cox · Real Estate · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Brian Cox is a small UK-based real estate agency operating primarily in the Harrow, Sudbury, Greenford, and Northolt areas. The company offers property sales and lettings services targeting local home buyers, sellers, and renters. The website is built on WordPress and leverages common plugins for SEO, analytics, and customer engagement, including Yoast SEO and Tawk.to live chat. While the site is professionally designed with good mobile optimization and clear navigation, it lacks explicit privacy and terms of service pages, which impacts compliance posture. Security-wise, HTTPS is enforced, and cookie consent is implemented, but the absence of key security headers suggests potential vulnerabilities. The WHOIS data is incomplete and indicates domain registration issues, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy despite the active and professional website presence. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate digital maturity but requires improvements in security and compliance to enhance trust and protect user data.

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

5 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.

    • 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Cloudflare

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

  2. 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

  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
    • 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

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

Keep watching brian-cox.co.uk

This scan found 22 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
49
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
70

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 business positions itself as a local estate agent with a focus on specific UK regions, providing essential real estate services. Its business model revolves around property sales and lettings, catering to residential customers. The website content and SEO efforts indicate a focus on attracting local clients. The lack of detailed company registration or VAT information on the site limits transparency. The use of third-party analytics and live chat tools suggests an intent to engage visitors and gather insights, supporting marketing and customer service efforts. However, the absence of direct contact details such as company emails or phone numbers on the site may hinder customer trust and accessibility.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and includes cookie consent mechanisms, indicating baseline security and privacy awareness. However, the lack of critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options exposes the site to risks like clickjacking and MIME sniffing attacks. The use of multiple third-party scripts increases the attack surface, necessitating regular updates and security audits. The incomplete WHOIS data and domain registration anomalies further complicate trust assessments. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present, which could delay mitigation of security incidents. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements to meet best practices and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and terms of service pages to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  3. Conduct a thorough security audit of WordPress plugins and update them regularly to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Clarify domain registration status and resolve WHOIS inconsistencies to enhance legitimacy and trustworthiness.
  5. Provide clear company contact information including verified emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Brian Cox
Description
Estate agents operating in Harrow, Sudbury, Greenford and Northolt areas offering property sales and lettings services.
Key services
Property sales, Property lettings, Estate agency services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics, Tawk.to live chat, Responsive Bootstrap, Slick Slider
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by canonical URL)
  • Use of security plugins (WP GDPR Compliance)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo Analytics, Feefo
Marketing tools
AddToAny social sharing
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based real estate agency site with multiple plugins for SEO, analytics, and live chat.
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via a plugin.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable or blocked due to domain naming rules, raising questions about domain registration legitimacy.
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found in the provided HTML snippet; contact is via form only.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No explicit security headers detected, suggesting room for security improvements.
  8. Website content is professional and relevant to real estate services in UK regions.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a responsive Bootstrap theme and uses jQuery along with plugins for sliders, social sharing, GDPR compliance, and live chat. Analytics are implemented via Google Analytics and Matomo, indicating a mature approach to visitor tracking. The site loads multiple external scripts and stylesheets, which may impact performance but also provide rich functionality. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO is supported by Yoast SEO plugin with proper meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. However, accessibility features appear basic, and no advanced performance optimization techniques are evident. The hosting provider is not identified from the data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and performance tuning.
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 brian-cox.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 brian-cox.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.