Skip to main content

Security report for id-installations.co.uk

Other · N/a

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

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.id-installations.co.uk currently serves only a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. No business-related content, contact information, or policies are accessible, indicating the site is effectively blocked by a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism. The WHOIS lookup for the domain fails with an error stating the domain name contains too many parts and cannot be registered, suggesting the domain is either invalid or misconfigured. This severely limits the ability to assess the business or technical maturity of the site. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation but lacks visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation in the provided data. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies further indicates low compliance maturity. No contact or business information is presented, and no analytics or advertising scripts are detected beyond essential security components. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates basic bot protection but lacks comprehensive security best practices such as security headers and visible SSL/TLS confirmation. The domain's WHOIS data issues raise legitimacy concerns. Overall, the site’s security posture is minimal, and the business credibility is low due to lack of accessible information. Given the blocking by security verification and domain registration issues, the overall risk assessment is high. Strategic recommendations include resolving domain registration issues, implementing HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS, adding security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear business contact 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 id-installations.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. 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
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention id-installations.co.uk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for id-installations.co.uk right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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 the domain registration failure, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The site does not present any company name, services, or market positioning. There are no visible partnerships, certifications, or contact details. The domain appears to be either invalid or misconfigured, which undermines any potential business operations or market presence. Without accessible content or WHOIS data, the business model, revenue streams, and customer segments cannot be analyzed.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 as a bot mitigation mechanism, indicating some level of security awareness. However, the lack of visible HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and privacy policies points to a low security maturity level. The domain registration issues further compound trust concerns. There is no evidence of incident response contacts, vulnerability disclosure policies, or data protection officer information. Overall, the security posture is minimal and requires significant improvements to meet standard compliance and security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve domain registration issues to ensure the domain is valid and properly registered.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and verify secure configuration.
  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 with GDPR compliance indicators.
  5. Provide clear business contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification with Google reCAPTCHA v3 challenge, minimal content, indicating WAF or bot protection blocking full access. 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
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is a minimal security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business or contact information is presented on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No visible security headers or HTTPS information provided.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable and indicates domain registration issues.
  6. Site is effectively blocked by a WAF or bot protection mechanism.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond reCAPTCHA and Bootstrap CDN.
  8. No social media or external business links present.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. The HTML content is minimal and serves only as a security verification page, indicating a WAF or bot protection challenge. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance and SEO optimization cannot be assessed due to lack of content. Accessibility is basic with minimal features. The technical implementation is incomplete and requires enhancements in security headers, HTTPS enforcement, and content delivery to improve user experience and trust.
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 id-installations.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 id-installations.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.