Skip to main content

Security report for elcome.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.elcome.co.uk appears to be a small business or personal site built on the Wix platform, utilizing standard Wix hosting and Google Analytics for tracking. However, the domain WHOIS lookup failed with an error indicating the domain name is invalid per Nominet UK naming rules, suggesting the domain is not properly registered or is misconfigured. The site content is minimal, lacking detailed business descriptions, contact information, or privacy and security policies. Technically, the site uses HTTPS and standard Wix scripts but lacks advanced security headers and comprehensive privacy compliance mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is basic with room for improvement in transparency and trust signals. The domain's invalid registration status significantly impacts the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the website.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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

4 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 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 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

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

Keep watching elcome.co.uk

This scan found 23 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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
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

Due to the absence of WHOIS registration data and minimal content, it is difficult to ascertain the business model, market position, or target audience. The site does not provide contact details or legal business information, which limits confidence in its credibility. The use of Wix suggests a small-scale or startup operation. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The lack of privacy and cookie policies also suggests limited compliance maturity.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options. No incident response or security policies are published. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates poor compliance with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the accessible content. The domain's invalid registration status is a critical concern for trust and legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Register a valid domain name compliant with Nominet UK rules to establish legitimacy.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Implement security headers to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  4. Add clear contact information and business credentials to improve trustworthiness.
  5. Develop and publish incident response and security policies to demonstrate security maturity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and Google Analytics integration.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available; domain appears invalid or unregistered.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact information such as emails or phone numbers found in the content.
  5. No security or incident response policies published.
  6. Content is minimal and lacks business descriptive information.
  7. No forms detected for user data collection.
  8. No social media links or verified company contacts found.
  9. Site uses HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers.
  10. No evidence of advertising networks beyond Google Analytics and Tag Manager.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, leveraging Wix's hosting and content delivery infrastructure. It uses Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking user interactions. The site is mobile optimized with basic accessibility features. Performance is moderate, typical of Wix-hosted sites. The technical implementation is standard but lacks advanced SEO and security optimizations. No custom frameworks or backend technologies were detected. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries in the accessible 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 elcome.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 elcome.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.