Skip to main content

Security report for creativereview.co.uk

Creative Review · Media · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

Creative Review is a well-established media publication focused on the creative industries including advertising, photography, film, design, music, and fashion. The website offers rich editorial content, subscription options, and partnerships, positioning itself as a key player in the creative media market in the United Kingdom. The site employs a modern technical infrastructure based on WordPress, enhanced with advanced analytics and advertising technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, DoubleClick, and Tinypass for paywall management. The website is well-optimized for SEO, mobile responsive, and provides a professional user experience with consistent branding and high-quality content. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and some security best practices observed, though explicit security headers and formal policies like privacy and terms of service are missing or not detected in the provided content. The WHOIS data query was performed incorrectly on the subdomain, resulting in no registrar or registrant information, which limits domain trust verification. Overall, the website is safe, professional, and credible, but would benefit from improved transparency on privacy and security policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 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 Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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 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 creativereview.co.uk

This scan found 15 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
75
Security headers
65
Email security
98
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
80

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

Creative Review operates as a media entity targeting creative professionals and enthusiasts. Its business model includes subscription services, advertising revenue, and partnerships. The site leverages premium content and editorial curation to maintain market position. The use of advanced marketing and analytics tools indicates a mature digital marketing strategy. No direct contact information or detailed business registration data was found, which is typical for media brands but could be improved for trust. The absence of WHOIS data limits external verification of domain ownership. The site’s advertising ecosystem includes major ad networks and tracking services, supporting monetization efforts. The content is curated to appeal to a broad creative audience, supporting brand loyalty and engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data. It uses consent management via OneTrust, indicating GDPR awareness. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security or incident response policies are gaps. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were detected. The site uses multiple third-party scripts and ad networks, which could introduce risk if not properly managed. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by formalizing policies and improving header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages accessible from the homepage.
  2. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  3. Add standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and data protection officer to improve transparency and compliance.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and ad networks to minimize security risks and ensure compliance with privacy regulations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Creative Review
Description
From advertising, photography and film, to design, music and fashion. How is creativity changing your world?
Key services
Creative industry news and insights, Subscription-based content, Advertising and partnerships, Newsletter and archive access
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, YouTube Iframe API, Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, DoubleClick (Google Ad Manager), Pingdom RUM, Tinypass (Piano) paywall, Cxense, jQuery
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with authentication tokens
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of consent management platform (OneTrust)
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Pingdom RUM, Adobe DTM, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
DoubleClick (Google Ad Manager), AdTech
Tracking pixels
Cxense, Pingdom RUM, Tinypass (Piano)
Marketing tools
Adobe DTM
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional creative media publication with rich content and good SEO
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in provided content
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via OneTrust
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the content
  5. Use of multiple advertising and tracking technologies including Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, DoubleClick, and Tinypass
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected
  7. WHOIS data query was performed incorrectly on subdomain, resulting in no registrar or registrant data
  8. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies
  9. Content is safe for general audiences with no adult or questionable content
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, YouTube Iframe API, Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, and Tinypass for paywall functionality. It uses advanced ad serving technologies like DoubleClick and AdTech. Performance is moderate with use of CDN services for images and scripts. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with good SEO practices including structured data (JSON-LD) and Open Graph metadata. There is no indication of outdated or vulnerable libraries. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found. The site uses multiple external domains for analytics, advertising, and content delivery, which is typical for media sites but requires ongoing security vigilance.
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 creativereview.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 creativereview.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.