Skip to main content

Security report for dunedin.com

Dunedin LLP · Finance · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Dunedin LLP operates as a regulated financial services partnership based in Edinburgh, UK, emphasizing teamwork and a straightforward partnership philosophy. The website presents a professional image with detailed team profiles and clear business information, targeting clients seeking financial accounting and finance direction services. The digital infrastructure leverages modern JavaScript libraries and tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager and CookieControl, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, though the absence of security headers and explicit privacy and terms of service pages suggests room for improvement. The lack of WHOIS data introduces some uncertainty regarding domain registration legitimacy, but the website content and FCA authorization provide strong trust signals. Overall, the site is professional, secure, and compliant with basic privacy standards, suitable for its business audience.

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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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 dunedin.com

This scan found 22 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
44
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
70

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

Dunedin LLP positions itself as a mid-sized financial services firm regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, serving business clients primarily in the UK. Its business model centers on partnership-based financial services including accounting and finance direction. The company maintains an active social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube, supporting marketing and client engagement efforts. The website content and structure reflect a focus on professionalism and trustworthiness, with clear branding and team transparency. The absence of WHOIS data is a notable anomaly but does not currently undermine the firm's market credibility. There is no evidence of subsidiaries or parent companies, indicating an independent operation. The firm’s digital marketing leverages analytics and retargeting tools, suggesting an intent to optimize client acquisition and retention.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and implements a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR requirements, reflecting a baseline security and privacy posture. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents a missed opportunity to harden the site against common web attacks. No forms or input fields were detected, reducing attack surface but also limiting user interaction. The absence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program indicates limited transparency in security governance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adopting additional security headers, publishing formal policies, and enhancing accessibility and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to improve site security.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages accessible from the website footer.
  3. Develop and disclose a security incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance transparency.
  4. Add data protection officer contact information to demonstrate GDPR compliance and accountability.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve user experience for all visitors, including those with disabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Dunedin LLP
Registration number
SO302262
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Dunedin LLP
Description
Dunedin LLP is a financial services partnership emphasizing teamwork, a straight-talking approach, and delivering on their word.
Key services
Financial accounting, Finance direction, Partnership financial services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, AOS (Animate On Scroll), Flickity carousel, jQuery Fancybox, jQuery bxSlider, Google Tag Manager, CookieControl
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar
Marketing tools
LinkedIn Insights
Transparency
good

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. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual and reduces trust
  3. Professional financial services website with team profiles and FCA authorization
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed cookie categories
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in the provided content
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the analyzed page
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube confirmed
  8. No forms detected on the analyzed page
  9. No security headers detected in the provided data
  10. SSL is enabled and presumably well configured
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based front-end stack including jQuery, AOS for animations, Flickity for carousels, Fancybox, and bxSlider for UI components. Google Tag Manager is deployed for analytics and marketing tag management, alongside CookieControl for cookie consent management. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and professional design. No CMS or hosting provider details were detected. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple JS libraries and external font loading. No technical debt or deprecated technologies were observed. The site lacks some advanced SEO and accessibility features but maintains a solid foundation for a professional services website.
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 dunedin.com. 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 dunedin.com.

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.