Skip to main content

Security report for greenfield-property.co.uk

Greenfield Estate Agents Limited · Real Estate · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Network security and 1 other check.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Greenfield Estate Agents Limited is a well-established real estate agency operating primarily in Surbiton and surrounding areas in the UK. With over 40 years of experience, they specialize in residential sales, lettings, property management, and land & new homes. The company leverages major property portals such as Rightmove and Zoopla to market properties effectively, offering premium listings and featured property adverts. Their website provides comprehensive property search functionality and detailed business information, including multiple contact points and customer testimonials, reinforcing their market credibility. Technically, the website is built on Joomla CMS and utilizes a modern tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and lazy loading for images, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. The site includes multiple interactive forms for property searches and registrations, with autocomplete features powered by third-party APIs. While no advanced security headers were detected, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data, indicating a moderate security posture. From a security and compliance perspective, the website includes comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms, indicating GDPR compliance. Certifications such as TPO and CMP are displayed, enhancing trust. However, WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable due to querying the 'www' subdomain, which is not a valid registered domain under Nominet rules. Despite this, the website content and contact information strongly indicate a legitimate and established business. Overall, Greenfield Estate Agents presents a professional and trustworthy online presence with good technical implementation and compliance practices. The main risk area is the lack of visible advanced security headers and the WHOIS data anomaly, which is likely a technical querying issue rather than a legitimacy concern.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

5 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 greenfield-property.co.uk

This scan found 24 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
30
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
54

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

Greenfield Estate Agents operates in a competitive real estate market focused on residential properties in Surbiton and nearby areas. Their long-standing presence and multi-channel marketing approach provide a competitive advantage. The business model centers on property sales, lettings, and management services, supplemented by valuation and mortgage advisory referrals. The company targets local homeowners, buyers, landlords, and tenants, emphasizing personalized service and local expertise. The presence of multiple certifications and positive customer testimonials supports a strong reputation. The website's integration with major property portals and use of premium listings suggests a focus on high-quality marketing and client acquisition. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified, indicating an independent small business operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and no sensitive data is exposed in the HTML. The use of third-party scripts is limited to trusted sources such as Google APIs and property data providers. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are provided, which is common for small businesses but represents an area for improvement. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and include consent mechanisms, supporting GDPR compliance. The WHOIS data anomaly is due to querying the 'www' subdomain, not a security issue. Overall, the site is secure for typical user interactions but could benefit from enhanced HTTP security headers and documented incident response procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance browser security.
  2. Regularly update and audit third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  3. Add a publicly accessible vulnerability disclosure or security contact page to improve incident response readiness.
  4. Ensure WHOIS queries target the base domain (greenfield-property.co.uk) to avoid misleading registration data and consider domain privacy if appropriate.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct periodic security assessments to maintain compliance and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Greenfield Estate Agents Limited
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Greenfield Estate Agents Limited
Description
Greenfield Estate Agents have been selling and letting property in Surbiton, Berrylands, Tolworth and surrounding areas for 40 years. They specialize in Residential Sales, Lettings, Property Management, and Land & New Homes. They advertise on major property portals including Rightmove, Zoopla, and Primelocation, offering premium marketing services.
Key services
Residential Sales, Residential Lettings, Property Management, Land & New Homes, Valuation, Mortgage advisory referrals
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, jQuery UI, Flexslider, Multiple Select jQuery plugin, Lozad.js (lazy loading), bxSlider
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by base href https://)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Form inputs with autocomplete off for location search

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and interactive property search forms.
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  3. WHOIS data unavailable for queried domain, likely due to incorrect WHOIS query on 'www' subdomain.
  4. Website uses Joomla CMS with common JS libraries and lazy loading for images.
  5. Multiple PDF documents for policies and terms are linked and accessible.
  6. Contact information is clearly presented with multiple phone numbers and emails.
  7. Customer testimonials provide strong trust signals.
  8. No social media links explicitly found in HTML content.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML.
  10. Cookie consent banner present with link to cookie policy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with a combination of jQuery, Bootstrap, and various jQuery plugins for UI components such as sliders, multiple select dropdowns, and autocomplete. Lazy loading is implemented via lozad.js to optimize image loading. The site uses Google Fonts loaded asynchronously for performance. The property search forms are dynamic and integrate with external APIs for location autocomplete. The site is responsive and mobile-optimized with a clear navigation structure. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in script loading and caching strategies. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected. The absence of advanced security headers and analytics scripts suggests a focus on privacy but also a potential lack of advanced monitoring.
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 greenfield-property.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 greenfield-property.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.