Skip to main content

Security report for emap.com

Emap · Media · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

emap is a well-established UK-based niche media owner with a history dating back to 1887. It operates under the parent company Metropolis Group and offers a diversified media portfolio including content publishing, digital media, events, and awards. The website is professionally designed using WordPress and integrates modern plugins and analytics tools. While the site is secure with HTTPS and uses Google Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA, it lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which impacts compliance. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises some legitimacy concerns, though the overall professional presentation and business information mitigate risk.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of emap.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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

3 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching emap.com

This scan found 21 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
67
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
76

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention emap.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
242
Employees
0
Customers
221
Third parties
21
Weak passwords
0%

3 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for emap.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate emap.com and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
100
Registered
100
Resolving
100
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-06-19

Masked preview

  • gm•••.comMediumbitsquatting
  • em•••.comMediumbitsquatting
  • em•••.comMediumbitsquatting

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of emap.com with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

emap holds a strong market position as a leading niche media owner in the UK, targeting industry professionals across various sectors such as fashion, architecture, construction, and finance. Its business model leverages content, events, and digital products to engage loyal audiences. The company benefits from its parent Metropolis Group's backing and maintains a consistent brand presence. The website reflects a medium-sized enterprise with a focus on quality content and audience engagement. The lack of explicit privacy and security policies suggests areas for improvement in regulatory compliance and trust-building.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of Google reCAPTCHA (though currently disabled), and integration of Google Tag Manager for analytics. However, the absence of security headers and lack of published security policies or incident response information indicate gaps in security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The missing WHOIS data for the domain is a concern for domain legitimacy and should be investigated. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be enhanced by implementing recommended best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Enable and properly configure Google reCAPTCHA on all forms to prevent spam and abuse.
  5. Publish a security incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Registration number
07880758
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Emap
Description
emap is one of the UK’s leading niche media owners providing insight to industries through content, digital media, awards & more. Part of the Metropolis Group. Founded in 1887 as East Midlands Allied Press, rebranded to emap in 1947, acquired by Metropolis Group in 2017.
Key services
Content publishing, Digital media, Industry events, Awards
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, jQuery 3.7.1, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2, Modern Events Calendar Lite plugin, WP Job Manager plugin, WP Carousel Pro plugin, Simple Social Buttons plugin
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA implemented (though disabled)
  • Google Tag Manager for analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

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. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found in public WHOIS database.
  3. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with multiple plugins for events, job management, and social sharing.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on homepage or linked pages.
  5. Contact information is clearly presented including phone number and contact form link.
  6. Social media presence on Twitter and LinkedIn is evident.
  7. Website content is professional and targeted at niche UK industry audiences.
  8. No security incident or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. SSL is properly configured and HTTPS is enforced.
  10. No suspicious or malicious domains detected in external links.
Technical notes

Notes

emap's website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and several specialized plugins for events and job management. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices via Yoast SEO. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in accessibility features. The technical infrastructure supports a professional media publishing business but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance tools. No hosting provider details were identified from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but with opportunities for modernization and compliance enhancements.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 76/100Low29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with emap.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 emap.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.