Skip to main content

Security report for johnsassociates.co.uk

Johns Associates Ltd · Other · United Kingdom

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Johns Associates Ltd is a well-established environmental consultancy based in the United Kingdom, specializing in ecology, landscape architecture, environmental planning, geospatial analysis, and nature-based solutions. Founded in 2007 and recently acquired by the Global Ecology and Environmental Group, the company serves a diverse client base including local authorities, developers, and environmental organizations. Their website reflects a professional and comprehensive presentation of their services, supported by client testimonials and recognized certifications. Technically, the website employs a modern but straightforward technology stack including jQuery, Google Maps API, and popular UI libraries such as Slick Carousel and Flexslider. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices and a clear navigation structure, though some accessibility features could be enhanced. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, no explicit security headers were detected in the provided data, and there is no visible vulnerability disclosure or incident response information. Privacy compliance is strong, with clear privacy and cookie policies and a functional consent mechanism. Contact information is prominently displayed, enhancing trust. Overall, the website and business present a low-risk profile with strong credibility and professionalism. The lack of WHOIS data is due to querying a non-registrable subdomain rather than the registered domain itself, which does not detract from the legitimacy of the business. Strategic improvements in security headers and incident response transparency would further strengthen their security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

      Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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
    • 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
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

      Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint

      What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC 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

  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

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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 johnsassociates.co.uk

This scan found 27 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
47
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
68
Average
48

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 · found on this site
  • 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

Johns Associates operates in the environmental consultancy sector with a focus on ecological and landscape architectural services. Their competitive advantage lies in their multidisciplinary approach, combining ecology, geospatial analysis, and environmental planning to deliver net gains for biodiversity and sustainable development. The company targets public sector clients, developers, and environmental organizations, leveraging certifications and a strong reputation to secure projects. The recent acquisition by a global ecology group indicates growth and market consolidation. Their business model is consultancy-driven, with revenue streams from project-based services and long-term client relationships. The company maintains active engagement through social media and news updates, signaling a dynamic and client-focused operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is in use, and no sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security suggests room for improvement. There is no public incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which could hinder rapid response to security issues. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but would benefit from enhanced header configurations and transparency around security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Establish and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve incident response readiness and transparency.
  3. Regularly update all third-party libraries and scripts to their latest secure versions to reduce risk of known vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance with standards such as WCAG and broaden user inclusivity.
  5. Maintain and prominently display privacy and security policies, including data retention and protection practices, to strengthen user trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Johns Associates Ltd
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Johns Associates Ltd
Description
A vibrant company offering a breadth of ecological, landscape architectural and environmental services. We provide bespoke specialist teams to deliver the right solution that also delivers a net gain to the environment, people and places.
Key services
Ecology, Biodiversity Net Gain and Nature Based Solutions, Landscape Architecture, Data, Geospatial Analysis and Visualisation, Water and Geoscience, Environmental Planning and Assessment, Countryside Management and Nature Restoration, Gaia Golf environmental services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.1.4, Google Maps API, Slick Carousel, Flexslider, Fancybox, Font Awesome 5.9.0, Simple Line Icons, Google Fonts (Montserrat)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No forms detected collecting sensitive data without protection

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
good
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
good
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia elements.
  2. No WAF or security challenge detected.
  3. No forms detected that collect personal data directly on homepage; contact via email and phone provided.
  4. Strong presence of trust indicators including certifications and client testimonials.
  5. Social media presence on Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
  6. Cookie consent banner present and functional.
  7. Privacy and cookie policies are present and comprehensive.
  8. No visible security headers detected in provided data; recommend audit.
  9. WHOIS data unavailable due to query on subdomain; base domain WHOIS should be checked separately.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a traditional web stack using jQuery and several UI libraries for sliders and modals. Google Fonts and Font Awesome are used for typography and icons. The site loads external scripts from reputable CDNs, which aids performance but requires monitoring for security. The absence of a detected CMS suggests a custom or static site architecture. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in script loading and caching. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design elements and mobile-specific video handling. SEO is well addressed through meta tags and structured navigation. Technical risks include outdated jQuery version and lack of security headers, which should be addressed to reduce attack surface.
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 johnsassociates.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 johnsassociates.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.