Skip to main content

Security report for dansoftas.co.uk

Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website dansoftas.co.uk currently presents a security verification page that blocks access to its main content using Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot protection mechanism, preventing full content analysis. The domain is registered since 2010 with UK2 Limited, a reputable UK registrar, suggesting a mature domain age but no registrant organization details are publicly available to verify business identity. The visible page contains minimal content, primarily a loading spinner and CAPTCHA scripts, with no business, contact, or policy information accessible. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA for security, but lacks visible security headers or SEO optimizations. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, and no contact or incident response information is provided. Overall, the site’s security posture shows basic bot protection but lacks comprehensive security best practices and compliance indicators.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

6 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"

    • 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

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

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

Keep watching dansoftas.co.uk

This scan found 24 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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
66

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

Due to the security verification page blocking access, no direct business information, services, or market positioning can be determined from the website content. The domain age and registrar suggest a legitimate registration, but absence of visible business details limits business intelligence insights. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The site appears to be small scale with minimal public-facing content at this time.

Security posture

The site employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge to mitigate automated bot access, indicating a basic level of security maturity. However, no security headers or HTTPS enforcement details were visible in the provided data. The lack of privacy, cookie, and incident response policies suggests compliance gaps. The security score is moderate but limited by the inability to fully assess the underlying site due to the WAF challenge. Recommendations include implementing comprehensive security headers, enforcing HTTPS, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear contact and incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced site-wide with strong SSL/TLS settings.
  3. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Provide visible contact information including security incident response contacts (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails).
  5. Improve website content accessibility by reducing reliance on WAF challenges for legitimate users and enhancing user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge with Google reCAPTCHA invisible token and spinner, indicating WAF or bot protection blocking full content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • Form uses invisible reCAPTCHA token

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business or contact information is visible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present or linked.
  4. Technical stack includes Bootstrap and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection.
  5. No SEO or accessibility optimizations are evident due to minimal content.
  6. No security headers or SSL details visible in provided data.
  7. WHOIS data shows a domain registered since 2010 with UK2 Limited registrar.
  8. Overall, the site is inaccessible for full content analysis due to WAF/bot protection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and layout and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge for bot protection. The hosting provider is UK2 Limited as per WHOIS data. The page content is minimal and primarily serves as a security verification gate, resulting in poor content quality and user experience. No CMS or advanced frameworks were detected. Performance is moderate given the minimal content but user experience is poor due to the blocking mechanism. SEO and accessibility optimizations are lacking. The technical debt includes absence of security headers and missing privacy compliance features.
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 dansoftas.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 dansoftas.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.