Skip to main content

Security report for cooperandtanner.co.uk

Cooper and Tanner · Real Estate · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in DNS health and SSL/TLS.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Cooper and Tanner is a well-established UK-based real estate firm specializing in residential, commercial, rural, equestrian, and agricultural property sales and lettings, along with valuations and auctions. The company leverages over 120 years of experience and offers a broad range of property-related services targeting buyers, sellers, landlords, tenants, and commercial clients. Their market position is that of a reputable regional multi-discipline practice with a professional online presence. Technically, the website is built on the Homeflow platform, utilizing modern JavaScript frameworks and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and includes cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies, which are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to querying the www subdomain, which slightly reduces trust but does not negate the professional appearance and functionality of the site. Overall, the website presents a credible and professional business front with moderate technical maturity and a solid security baseline.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 25 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  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
    • 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 cooperandtanner.co.uk

This scan found 18 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
52
Security headers
85
Email security
80
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
77

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 real estate sector with a diversified portfolio including residential, commercial, rural, and specialized properties such as equestrian and farms. Their business model includes property sales, lettings, valuations, and auctions, serving a wide customer base in the UK. The website indicates a medium-sized firm with a strong regional presence and a multi-disciplinary approach. The firm maintains active social media channels on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, enhancing their marketing reach. The use of Homeflow platform and Google Tag Manager suggests a focus on digital marketing and analytics. No direct evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries was found in the content. The company appears to maintain a professional brand image with consistent messaging and service offerings.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications. Cookie consent is implemented with an opt-in mechanism, supporting GDPR compliance. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is published, which limits transparency and preparedness perception. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The WHOIS data inconsistency is a concern but may be due to querying the www subdomain rather than the root domain. Overall, the security posture is moderate with room for enhancements in policy transparency and technical headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Improve accessibility compliance to enhance usability for all users.
  5. Clarify WHOIS registration details by ensuring queries target the root domain and consider publishing verified company registration information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Cooper and Tanner
Description
Professional estate and letting agents, surveyors and auctioneers with over 120 years experience providing specialist advice on residential, agricultural and commercial property as well as livestock, agricultural machinery and antiques.
Key services
Residential sales, Commercial sales, Rural properties, Equestrian properties, Farms and land, Development opportunities, Residential lettings, Commercial lettings, Valuations and surveys, Auctions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Homeflow platform, Google Fonts (Poppins), HTML5, CSS3
Frameworks
Homeflow
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with opt-in mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Ahrefs Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Professional real estate business website with comprehensive service offerings
  3. Cookie consent implemented with opt-in mechanism
  4. No explicit privacy or security policy pages found in main HTML but cookie policy is present
  5. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on www subdomain rather than root domain
  6. Social media presence on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram
  7. Uses Homeflow platform and Google Tag Manager
  8. No visible security headers detected in HTML meta tags
  9. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in provided HTML snippet
  10. Multiple navigation menus with clear structure and property search forms
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Homeflow platform, leveraging modern JavaScript frameworks (React implied), Google Fonts, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site uses responsive design techniques and preloads images for performance optimization. The presence of react-datepicker and react-autowhatever libraries indicates interactive UI components. The site loads asynchronously loaded scripts and uses deferred loading for widgets, contributing to moderate performance. No CMS other than Homeflow was detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit. The site lacks some advanced SEO meta tags and accessibility features but maintains a clear navigation structure and professional design. Technical debt appears low, but improvements in security headers and policy documentation are recommended.
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 cooperandtanner.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 cooperandtanner.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.