Skip to main content

Security report for hobartservice.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website hobartservice.co.uk currently presents only a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3, indicating the presence of a web application firewall or bot mitigation mechanism. This prevents access to any substantive website content, including business information, contact details, or policies. The domain is registered since 2009 with a reputable UK registrar, 123-Reg Limited, suggesting a potentially established business presence. However, the lack of accessible content limits the ability to assess the company's market position, services, or digital maturity. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA, but lacks visible security headers or privacy compliance indicators. The security posture is moderate due to HTTPS implied by reCAPTCHA but is hindered by the absence of other security best practices. Overall, the site’s risk profile is elevated due to inaccessibility and lack of transparency, requiring further investigation or direct contact for comprehensive evaluation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 hobartservice.co.uk

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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
59

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 security verification page blocking access, no direct business intelligence data such as company description, target audience, business model, or market positioning could be extracted. The domain age suggests a long-standing registration, but no evidence of active business operations or digital presence is visible. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or certifications are disclosed. The lack of contact information and policies further limits business credibility assessment.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 as a bot mitigation tool, which is a positive security measure. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected in the provided HTML. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The security verification page itself suggests a proactive approach to mitigate automated attacks, but the lack of accessible content prevents a full security audit. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified, but the limited content restricts comprehensive analysis.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and expose a full website beyond the security verification page to allow proper business and security assessment.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Deploy and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  5. Conduct a full security audit once the website content is accessible to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA invisible challenge, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking direct access to content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • HTTPS implied by reCAPTCHA integration

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3
  2. No business or contact information is available on the page
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected
  5. WHOIS data shows domain is registered since 2009 with 123-Reg Limited
  6. No social media links, emails, phone numbers, or addresses found
  7. Website appears to be protected by a bot mitigation mechanism, blocking content access
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, indicating use of modern frontend technologies. Hosting is via 123-Reg Limited, a known UK registrar and hosting provider. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level but lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. The presence of a security verification page suggests a layered security approach but also indicates potential technical debt or configuration issues preventing direct content access. No CMS or backend technologies could be identified from the HTML 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 hobartservice.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 hobartservice.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.