Skip to main content

Security report for britbox.com

Media · N/a

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website page analyzed is a location restriction notice for BritBox, a media streaming service. The page informs users that their current location is not supported for accessing the service. The content is minimal and focused solely on this message, with no visible privacy policy, terms of service, or contact information on this specific page. The site uses modern web technologies including Vue.js, Google Tag Manager, Optimizely, and OneTrust for cookie consent management. Analytics and marketing tools are integrated, indicating a mature digital marketing infrastructure. However, the absence of WHOIS data and security headers reduces the overall trust and security posture. The site appears to be legitimate given the references to BBC and BritBox domains, but the lack of WHOIS data is a concern that should be further investigated.

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. 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 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs, Google Ads

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

  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 britbox.com

This scan found 16 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
62
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
78

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention britbox.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
8,826
Employees
4
Customers
8,822
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
6%

Latest record dated 2025-09-30 · 15 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for britbox.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –britbox.com2025-09-30
  • –www.britbox.com2025-09-11
  • –account.britbox.com2025-07-07
  • –account.britbox.com2025-06-02

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

BritBox operates in the media streaming sector, targeting users interested in British television content. The business model likely involves subscription-based streaming services. The location restriction page suggests geo-blocking practices to comply with licensing agreements. The company appears to have a large-scale operation given the use of advanced analytics and marketing tools. However, the analyzed page lacks direct business contact information or detailed company disclosures, limiting the ability to fully assess business credibility from this page alone.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate but could be improved. HTTPS is implied but not explicitly confirmed in the data. No security headers were detected, which are important for protecting against common web vulnerabilities. The site uses reputable third-party services for analytics and cookie consent, which supports compliance efforts. The absence of visible privacy and security policies on this page is a gap. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content analyzed. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security headers, explicit privacy disclosures, and incident response contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Ensure HTTPS is enforced site-wide and SSL/TLS configuration is strong and up to date.
  3. Publish clear and accessible privacy policy and terms of service pages linked from all pages.
  4. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident reporting.
  5. Provide visible and verified contact information for customer support and security incidents to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Optimizely, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Vue.js (implied by vue-modal classes), Redfastlabs scripts, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), BBC Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Rokt
Tracking pixels
Optimizely
Marketing tools
Optimizely
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a location restriction notice page indicating user location is not supported for service access.
  2. No WHOIS data available, indicating privacy protection or registry data unavailability.
  3. Cookie consent banner present with OneTrust implementation.
  4. No visible privacy policy or terms of service links on this page.
  5. No contact information or forms present on this page.
  6. Uses modern JavaScript frameworks and analytics tools.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; SSL status unknown.
  8. No adult or explicit content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
  9. External domains mostly related to content delivery, analytics, and marketing.
  10. No WAF or security challenge detected; page is accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript framework (Vue.js) and integrates multiple third-party services including Google Tag Manager, Optimizely for A/B testing, and OneTrust for cookie consent management. The site preconnects and DNS-prefetches several domains to optimize performance. The page is mobile optimized and includes responsive design elements. However, the content is minimal and focused on a location restriction message, limiting SEO and content richness. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected. Performance is moderate based on resource loading patterns. Accessibility features are basic but present. Overall, the technical implementation is competent but could be enhanced with richer content and improved security configurations.
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 britbox.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 britbox.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.