Skip to main content

Security report for howemaxted.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.howemaxted.co.uk currently serves only as a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge to prevent automated access. No actual business content, contact information, or legal policies are accessible, indicating the site is effectively blocked or under protection. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to a naming rules violation by Nominet UK, suggesting the domain is invalid or misconfigured and not properly registered. This severely impacts the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the domain. From a technical perspective, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation, but lacks visible security headers, privacy policies, or meaningful content. The site is mobile optimized to a basic degree but offers poor user experience and navigation due to the lack of content. Security posture is minimal, relying solely on reCAPTCHA without HTTPS enforcement or additional security headers. No privacy compliance or business credibility indicators are present. Overall, the site is inaccessible beyond the security challenge, limiting any meaningful analysis or user engagement. The overall risk is high due to domain registration issues and lack of accessible content or policies. Strategic recommendations include resolving domain registration issues, implementing HTTPS and security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear business information to improve trust and compliance.

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

7 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. 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

  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

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

Keep watching howemaxted.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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
61

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 absence of accessible business content and failed WHOIS data retrieval, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears invalid or misconfigured, and no company name, services, or market positioning is discernible. The website does not provide any contact or legal information, nor does it show evidence of partnerships or certifications. The lack of content and domain legitimacy suggests the business presence is either non-existent or not publicly accessible at this domain.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge as its primary security mechanism to prevent automated access. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers are evident, and no privacy or security policies are published. The domain registration failure further undermines trust. The site lacks incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is weak, relying on a single bot mitigation layer without comprehensive security controls or compliance measures.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve domain registration issues with Nominet UK to ensure the domain is valid and properly registered.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  5. Provide clear business contact information and legal notices to improve credibility and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicating content is blocked behind a bot protection mechanism. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification
  • Form uses invisible reCAPTCHA token

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 content is a minimal security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge.
  2. No actual business content or navigation is present.
  3. No contact, privacy, or legal information found.
  4. Domain WHOIS lookup failed indicating domain is invalid or not properly registered.
  5. No SSL/HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA scripts.
  7. Website is effectively blocked by a security mechanism preventing content access.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. The HTML content is minimal, consisting mainly of a security verification form with an invisible reCAPTCHA token. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is moderate given the minimal content, and mobile optimization is basic but functional. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta tags beyond the title and absence of meaningful content. Accessibility features are minimal. The site lacks security headers and HTTPS enforcement indications in the provided data, representing technical risks.
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 howemaxted.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 howemaxted.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.