Skip to main content

Security report for dmburgess.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.dmburgess.co.uk currently serves a security verification page that employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot protection mechanism restricting normal user access. Due to this, no meaningful business content, contact information, or company details are accessible for analysis. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to domain naming rules violations, providing no registrar or registrant data, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy and registration status. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. However, there is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers in the provided data. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies further indicates a lack of compliance with common data protection regulations such as GDPR. The site’s content quality and user experience are poor due to the blocking mechanism and minimal content. From a security perspective, the site shows basic bot protection but lacks comprehensive security best practices such as HTTPS, security headers, and clear privacy policies. The inability to access the actual website content and the lack of WHOIS data significantly limit trust and credibility assessments. Overall, the site’s risk profile is elevated due to these factors, and it is recommended to verify domain registration and improve transparency and security posture. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, publishing privacy and cookie policies, providing verifiable business contact information, enhancing security headers, and reviewing domain registration status to ensure legitimacy 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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. 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';…

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

Keep watching dmburgess.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. See sample alerts.

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
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
57

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 website being inaccessible beyond a security verification challenge and the absence of any business-related content or metadata, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. There is no information on market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships. The domain WHOIS failure further obscures any insight into company ownership or operational history. The lack of social media links or external business domains also limits ecosystem analysis.

Security posture

The current security posture is minimal and focused primarily on bot mitigation via Google reCAPTCHA v3. There is no visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers in the provided content, which are critical for protecting user data and preventing common web attacks. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not present. The domain WHOIS failure and domain naming issues add to the risk profile, suggesting potential legitimacy concerns. Overall, the security maturity is low, and significant improvements are needed to meet industry best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR and other regulatory compliance.
  4. Provide clear and verifiable business contact information including email, phone, and physical address.
  5. Verify domain registration status and correct any domain naming issues to establish legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge with Google reCAPTCHA v3, indicating bot protection or WAF presence blocking normal content. 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
good
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

Marketing tools
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is presented.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No WHOIS data available due to domain naming rules violation.
  5. Technical implementation uses Bootstrap and Google reCAPTCHA but lacks other modern SEO or security features.
  6. No external business-related links or social media profiles detected.
  7. 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 invisible bot verification. The HTML content is minimal and primarily serves as a challenge page, limiting content delivery and user interaction. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is moderate given the lightweight page, but user experience is poor due to access restrictions. SEO optimization is minimal with no meta description or Open Graph tags. Accessibility features are basic, with some ARIA roles implied by Bootstrap components. The lack of HTTPS and security headers represents a technical risk. Modernization opportunities include full site content delivery post-verification, enhanced SEO, and improved accessibility.
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 dmburgess.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 dmburgess.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.