Skip to main content

Security report for demkelengineering.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.demkelengineering.co.uk currently serves a security verification page that requires users to pass a Google reCAPTCHA v3 challenge before accessing any content. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot protection mechanism blocking direct access to the site content. Due to this, no meaningful business or contact information is accessible, and the domain WHOIS data is unavailable because the domain name violates Nominet UK's naming rules, suggesting the domain is either invalid or misconfigured. From a technical perspective, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot mitigation. However, no other technologies, CMS, or hosting details are discernible. The lack of visible security headers, privacy policies, or contact information further limits the assessment of the site's security posture and compliance. Security-wise, the use of reCAPTCHA is a positive measure against automated abuse, but the absence of HTTPS enforcement data, security headers, and privacy compliance documentation are notable gaps. The domain's invalid WHOIS status severely undermines trust and legitimacy, raising concerns about the authenticity and operational status of the business. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal users without passing the security challenge, and the domain registration issues suggest the website may not be fully operational or legitimate. Strategic recommendations include resolving domain registration issues, enhancing transparency with privacy and contact information, implementing robust security headers, and ensuring HTTPS is enforced to improve trust and compliance.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching demkelengineering.co.uk

This scan found 27 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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 lack of accessible content and absence of business information on the site, no detailed business intelligence can be derived. The domain's WHOIS failure and naming rule violation indicate potential misconfiguration or non-registration, which is inconsistent with a legitimate operating business. No market positioning, revenue models, or partnership data are available. The site appears to be either under development, misconfigured, or protected behind strict security measures preventing analysis.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal but includes Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. No other security headers or HTTPS enforcement details are visible. The domain registration issues and lack of contact or incident response information represent significant compliance and trust gaps. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance or data protection officer contact. The site is effectively inaccessible without passing the bot verification, which limits exposure but also usability. Overall, the security maturity appears low with critical gaps in transparency and domain legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve domain registration issues to ensure the domain is valid and properly registered with Nominet UK.
  2. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  4. Publish clear contact information including business address, phone, and email for trust and incident response.
  5. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicating bot protection or WAF presence. Content is minimal and access to actual site content is blocked. 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
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification

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 Google reCAPTCHA v3 security verification challenge.
  2. No substantive business or contact information is available on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present or linked.
  4. No WHOIS data available due to domain registration error.
  5. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement data provided.
  6. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA domains.
  7. No social media or contact details found.
  8. Website appears to be inaccessible for normal users without passing bot verification.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for responsive design and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. No CMS or backend technologies are identifiable from the provided data. The site content is minimal and consists solely of a security verification form with a hidden reCAPTCHA token field. External resources are loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains. No performance metrics are available, but the minimal content suggests fast loading. Mobile optimization is basic due to Bootstrap usage. SEO and accessibility are poor due to lack of meaningful content and metadata. The site is effectively a gatekeeper page blocking access to the main content.
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 demkelengineering.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 demkelengineering.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.