Skip to main content

Security report for gatesheadhousing.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in DNS health, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.gatesheadhousing.co.uk is currently inaccessible beyond a Cloudflare security challenge page, which blocks direct content access. This prevents extraction of meaningful business, contact, or policy information. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to a domain naming rules violation, indicating potential misconfiguration or legitimacy concerns. The site uses Cloudflare's Turnstile captcha and strict Content-Security-Policy headers, reflecting a strong security posture at the perimeter level but limiting content visibility. Overall, the digital maturity appears limited due to blocked content and lack of accessible information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 21 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  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

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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 gatesheadhousing.co.uk

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
37
Security headers
65
Email security
88
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
66

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-related data, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. The domain's WHOIS failure and absence of registrant data further obscure the business context. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified beyond Cloudflare references. The website does not expose any contact or marketing information, limiting insights into market positioning or customer engagement.

Security posture

The website benefits from Cloudflare's security services, including a WAF and Turnstile captcha, which provide robust protection against bots and malicious traffic. The presence of a strict Content-Security-Policy header is a positive security control. However, the inability to access the actual website content limits assessment of internal security practices, privacy compliance, and incident response readiness. The WHOIS data absence is a concern for domain legitimacy and trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the accessible content.

Recommendations

  1. Work with domain registrar and Nominet UK to resolve domain naming issues and enable proper WHOIS data visibility.
  2. Ensure website content is accessible beyond the WAF challenge for legitimate users to improve business credibility and SEO.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to enhance compliance and user trust.
  4. Add visible contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses to improve business transparency.
  5. Maintain and monitor security headers and WAF configurations to balance security with user accessibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Website is behind a Cloudflare security challenge page with Turnstile captcha, blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare Turnstile, Cloudflare WAF

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Cloudflare security service
  • Content-Security-Policy header present

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to Cloudflare WAF challenge page
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  4. No forms or data collection elements visible
  5. No social media or external business links except Cloudflare references
  6. Security headers include a strict Content-Security-Policy
  7. No WHOIS data available due to domain naming error
  8. Website likely uses Cloudflare for DDoS and bot protection
  9. No evidence of adult or explicit content
  10. Analysis limited by lack of accessible content
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted behind Cloudflare, utilizing their WAF and Turnstile captcha for bot mitigation. The HTML content is minimal and serves only as a security verification page, lacking any business or navigational elements. No CMS or frameworks are detectable due to blocked content. Performance and accessibility cannot be assessed accurately. The strict Content-Security-Policy header indicates good security hygiene at the perimeter. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to a naming violation, indicating a technical or administrative issue with domain registration.
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 gatesheadhousing.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 gatesheadhousing.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.