Skip to main content

Security report for ianwilliams.co.uk

Ian Williams · Real Estate · United Kingdom

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

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Ian Williams is a well-established, privately-owned property services company based in the United Kingdom, founded in 1946. The company specializes in innovative painting, planned investment, and repair services, targeting property owners, housing associations, and local authorities. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, emphasizing quality service delivery and investment in people and processes. The business model focuses on providing property maintenance and investment services with a medium-sized market presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, utilizing modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics, and Cookiebot for privacy compliance. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with structured data implemented for enhanced search engine understanding. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. The technical infrastructure supports a professional digital presence but lacks some advanced security headers. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and implements a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were detected in the analyzed content. However, the absence of explicit security headers and vulnerability disclosure policies suggests areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is incomplete due to a domain naming error in the lookup, but the website content and structure indicate a legitimate and trustworthy business. Overall, the website presents a solid digital footprint with good privacy compliance and a professional business image. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing security and incident response policies, and improving WHOIS data transparency to strengthen trust and compliance.

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 ianwilliams.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
47
Security headers
25
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
55

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

Ian Williams operates in the real estate sector, focusing on property maintenance and investment services. The company leverages its long history and reputation to maintain a strong market position. Their business model is service-oriented, targeting institutional clients such as housing associations and local authorities. The website's content and structure suggest a focus on quality and innovation in service delivery. The company uses digital marketing tools and analytics to understand customer engagement and optimize outreach. Partnerships with analytics and cookie consent providers indicate a mature approach to digital compliance. The absence of explicit partner or subsidiary domains suggests a focused operational scope without extensive corporate branching. The company’s growth indicators include a well-maintained website with regular content updates and compliance with privacy regulations. The strategic use of analytics and marketing tools supports data-driven decision-making. However, the lack of visible contact emails and phone numbers may limit direct customer engagement online, relying instead on contact forms. Overall, Ian Williams demonstrates a stable and credible business presence with potential for digital expansion.

Security posture

The website exhibits a good security posture with mandatory HTTPS encryption and a robust cookie consent mechanism ensuring GDPR compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the HTML content. The use of reputable analytics and consent management services further supports privacy and security best practices. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security headers is a notable gap that could be addressed to enhance protection against common web attacks. There is no evidence of published security policies, incident response plans, or vulnerability disclosure programs, which are important for transparency and trust. The WHOIS data is incomplete, which may raise concerns about domain registration transparency but does not directly impact website security. Overall, the security maturity is moderate to good, with room for improvement in policy publication and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and consider adding a security.txt file.
  4. Enhance transparency by ensuring accurate and complete WHOIS registration data for the domain.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party plugins and scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ian Williams
Description
Ian Williams, a privately-owned property services company founded in 1946, specialises in innovative painting, planned investment, and repair services. Our passion for investing in our people and processes drives us to deliver high-quality services to customers and stakeholders.
Key services
painting, planned investment, repair services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics, Cookiebot
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data found

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads, Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Matomo
Marketing tools
MonsterInsights, ExactMetrics
Transparency
good

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 professional design.
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for SEO, analytics, and cookie consent.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in provided HTML; contact likely via forms.
  4. Strong cookie consent and privacy compliance mechanisms in place.
  5. No explicit security headers detected in HTML; HTTPS is enforced.
  6. No visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to domain naming error; domain appears legitimate but WHOIS lookup was done on 'www' subdomain which is invalid for .uk domains.
  8. No terms of service or explicit security policy pages detected.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  10. No data protection officer contact found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including PHP, jQuery, and integration with Google Analytics and Matomo for analytics. Cookiebot is used for cookie consent management, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. The site uses responsive design techniques and accessibility tools, providing a good user experience across devices. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed and optimization of third-party scripts. The absence of advanced security headers and incomplete WHOIS data represent technical risks that could impact trust and security. Overall, the infrastructure is solid but would benefit from modernization efforts focused on security hardening and performance tuning.
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 ianwilliams.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 ianwilliams.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.