Skip to main content

Security report for charlesandrews.co.uk

Charles Andrews Ltd · Education · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Charles Andrews Ltd is a well-established independent building services consultancy founded in 1945, specializing in mechanical and electrical engineering consultancy services for both public and private sectors. The company boasts a strong market position supported by over 80 years of experience, multiple industry accreditations, and a portfolio of completed projects across various sectors including education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear navigation and comprehensive content about their services and projects. Technically, the website employs a modern JavaScript stack with libraries such as jQuery, Owl Carousel, and Google Tag Manager, and integrates Google reCAPTCHA for security. The site is mobile-optimized and includes a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR requirements. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced and reCAPTCHA implemented; however, the absence of security headers and a published security policy are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable due to a domain naming rules error, which raises some concerns about domain registration legitimacy, though the website content and business information appear credible. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital presence with room for enhanced security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

4 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
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching charlesandrews.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
35
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
54

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 operates in the building services engineering consultancy market with a focus on mechanical and electrical services, project management, and energy consultation. Their client base spans public and private sectors, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects. The business model centers on consultancy services with a strong emphasis on repeat business, as indicated by 80% turnover from repeat clients. The firm holds multiple industry certifications that enhance its competitive advantage and trustworthiness. The website's content and project showcases indicate a medium-sized enterprise with a solid reputation and a strategic focus on quality and compliance. Partnerships with professional bodies and a visible social media presence support their market positioning. The lack of WHOIS transparency is a potential risk factor but does not currently impact operational credibility.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated abuse, reflecting a baseline security maturity. The presence of a cookie consent banner with granular settings indicates compliance with privacy regulations. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the overall security posture. No visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and preparedness for security incidents. The WHOIS data anomaly introduces a trust concern but does not directly affect website security. Overall, the security posture is moderate with clear opportunities for enhancement in headers and policy transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  3. Investigate and resolve the WHOIS domain registration anomaly to improve domain trustworthiness and legitimacy.
  4. Regularly audit third-party libraries and scripts to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Charles Andrews Ltd
Registration number
4815137
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Charles Andrews Ltd
Description
Independent multi-disciplined Building Services Consultancy established in 1945, offering a wide range of experience in all aspects of building services engineering.
Key services
M & E Services, Project Management, Energy Consultation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.12.0, jQuery UI, Owl Carousel, Unite Gallery, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented
  • Cookie consent banner with granular settings

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia
  2. Strong branding and consistent design
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy present
  4. No visible security headers detected in HTML source
  5. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating possible domain registration anomaly
  6. Social media presence on Facebook and LinkedIn
  7. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and Google services
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content
  9. Contact information clearly presented with email and phone
  10. Certifications prominently displayed enhancing trust
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a combination of legacy and modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery 1.12.0, jQuery UI, Owl Carousel, and Unite Gallery for UI components and media display. Google Tag Manager and Google reCAPTCHA v3 are integrated for analytics and security respectively. The site is served over HTTPS with good SSL configuration. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in loading times and script management. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and SEO meta tags properly configured. No CMS or hosting provider information is explicitly detected. The technical stack supports a professional and functional user experience but could benefit from modernization and enhanced 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 charlesandrews.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 charlesandrews.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.