Skip to main content

Security report for hoofandhound.co.uk

Hoof and Hound · Retail · United Kingdom

Partial score · DNS & email only

65/100

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

Hoof and Hound is a small UK-based pet care service provider focusing on dog and horse grooming, sitting, and walking services. The current website is a placeholder indicating an upcoming new site, with minimal content and basic contact options limited to an email link and a login form. The business targets pet owners in the UK, operating likely as a small local service provider. Technically, the website uses Joomla CMS with jQuery and Bootstrap libraries, but lacks advanced features or modern optimizations. Security posture is weak, with no detected security headers and minimal form protections. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable due to a naming rules violation, raising concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, the website is accessible but underdeveloped, with significant room for improvement in security, privacy compliance, and content quality.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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 hoofandhound.co.uk

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
57
Email security
55
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
65

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

The business operates in the retail sector, specifically pet care services. Its market position appears to be small and local, with a straightforward service offering. The lack of detailed business information, certifications, or social media presence limits visibility into competitive advantages or growth indicators. The business model is service-based, targeting pet owners requiring grooming and care. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the website. The placeholder nature of the site suggests a possible relaunch or redevelopment phase.

Security posture

Security maturity is low. The website uses HTTPS but lacks security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. The login form does not show visible advanced protections like CSRF tokens. No incident response or security policies are published. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The domain registration issues further reduce trustworthiness. Overall, the security posture exposes the business to potential risks and undermines user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to improve protection against common web attacks.
  3. Enhance login form security with CSRF tokens and input validation to prevent abuse.
  4. Resolve domain registration issues to ensure legitimacy and avoid potential domain disputes.
  5. Develop the website content and navigation to improve user experience and business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Hoof and Hound
Description
A business related to dog and horse services, including grooming, sitting, and walking, currently with a placeholder website indicating an upcoming new site.
Key services
Dog grooming, Horse grooming, Pet sitting, Pet walking
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap
Frameworks
Joomla!
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by base href https://)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is currently a placeholder with minimal content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. Contact is limited to an email link and a login form.
  4. No social media or phone contact information present.
  5. Website uses Joomla CMS with standard jQuery and Bootstrap libraries.
  6. No security headers or advanced security features detected.
  7. WHOIS data indicates domain registration issues, suggesting possible domain legitimacy problems.
  8. No advertising or analytics scripts detected.
  9. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with jQuery and Bootstrap for frontend functionality. The site is currently a placeholder with minimal content and basic styling. Performance is moderate but could be improved with optimization. Mobile responsiveness is basic but present. SEO is minimal with only basic meta tags. No analytics or tracking scripts are detected, indicating limited data collection. The lack of security headers and modern security practices represents technical debt and potential risk. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the data.
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 hoofandhound.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 hoofandhound.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.