Skip to main content

Security report for hallettindependent.com

Hallett Independent Limited · Other · United Kingdom

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Hallett Independent Limited is a specialist insurance brokerage focused on providing expert advice and risk management services to private clients and the art sector, including artists, collectors, museums, and galleries. The company positions itself as an independent alternative to large global insurance firms, emphasizing personalized service and deep expertise in art and cultural heritage insurance. Their services cover a broad range of insurance needs such as cyber and data insurance, exhibitions and loans, listed building insurance, and more. The business operates primarily in the United Kingdom with international reach, maintaining offices in London and Lymington. The website reflects a professional and well-branded presence with clear contact information and regulatory compliance, including FCA authorization and Cyber Essentials certification.

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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

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

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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

  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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching hallettindependent.com

This scan found 26 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
20
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
53
Average
47

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 · found on this site
  • 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

The company targets a niche market of art collectors, private clients, and cultural institutions, leveraging its specialized knowledge to differentiate from general insurance providers. The business model is consultancy and brokerage-based, generating revenue through commissions and advisory fees. The small team size suggests a boutique approach, focusing on high-touch client relationships. The presence of partnerships and a sustainability policy indicates a commitment to corporate responsibility and industry collaboration. The website's integration with Mailchimp for newsletter subscriptions and social media presence on Instagram and LinkedIn supports ongoing client engagement and marketing efforts.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 to protect forms from automated abuse. The display of Cyber Essentials certification demonstrates a recognized baseline of cybersecurity hygiene. However, the absence of visible security headers and a cookie consent mechanism indicates areas for improvement in security hardening and privacy compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The lack of an incident response contact or vulnerability disclosure policy suggests limited transparency in security incident management. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced controls and documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to improve defense against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR and ePrivacy Directive requirements.
  3. Publish a dedicated security or incident response page with contact details for reporting vulnerabilities or incidents.
  4. Consider creating and publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to foster responsible security reporting.
  5. Regularly review and update privacy policies and data retention practices to maintain compliance with evolving regulations.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Hallett Independent Limited
Registration number
04407168
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Hallett Independent Limited
Description
Independent insurance and risk management specialist providing policies and risk management advice to both commercial and private art clients.
Key services
Art insurance, Private client insurance, Risk management advice, Cyber and data insurance, Exhibitions and loans insurance, Listed building insurance, Museum and gallery insurance
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.9.1, jQuery 3.7.1, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Slick Carousel, AOS (Animate On Scroll), Yoast SEO plugin
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented on forms
  • Cyber Essentials certification badge displayed

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Mailchimp
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Professional insurance brokerage focused on art and private clients.
  3. Strong branding and consistent design with good SEO practices.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and security measures like HTTPS and reCAPTCHA.
  5. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual and warrants further investigation.
  6. Privacy and terms policies are present but cookie consent is lacking.
  7. Contact information is comprehensive and clearly presented.
  8. Cyber Essentials certification is prominently displayed, indicating security awareness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.9.1, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery 3.7.1, Slick Carousel for sliders, and AOS for animations. SEO is enhanced through the Yoast SEO plugin, and Google Analytics is used for traffic analysis. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and professional design quality. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading speed. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified. The use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicates attention to form security. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained, supporting a positive user experience and effective digital presence.
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 hallettindependent.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 hallettindependent.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.