Skip to main content

Security report for jopotts.net

Jo Potts · Media · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Jo Potts is a professional video producer and editor offering comprehensive video production, editing, and motion design services. The website serves as a portfolio showcasing recent projects and notable clients, targeting businesses and individuals seeking high-quality video content. The business operates as a small-scale service provider within the media industry. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Vantage theme, with common plugins such as WPForms Lite and W3 Total Cache. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices, though accessibility and SEO could be improved. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and Google reCAPTCHA protecting the contact form, but lacks security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, indicating compliance gaps. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, though the active and professional website partially mitigates this risk. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced compliance and security measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

9 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.

    • 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

  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. 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 jopotts.net

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
47
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
46

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

The business positions itself as a niche video production and editing service with a portfolio of corporate and creative clients, including well-known brands. The business model is service-based, focusing on bespoke video content creation from concept to delivery. The target market includes corporate clients and individuals needing professional video services. The website demonstrates consistent branding and good content quality, supporting a moderate level of trustworthiness. There is no evidence of parent companies or subsidiaries. The external links primarily point to client or partner websites and video hosting platforms, indicating a network of professional relationships.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA on its contact form, which are positive security practices. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options, which could expose it to certain web-based attacks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. There is no evidence of an incident response policy or security certifications. The missing WHOIS data is a notable concern for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with additional headers, policies, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to address compliance requirements.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to improve legitimacy and trust.
  4. Consider publishing a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident response.
  5. Enhance website accessibility and SEO to improve user experience and discoverability.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jo Potts
Description
Jo Potts is a video producer and editor offering services including video production, editing, and motion design. The website showcases recent projects and clients, emphasizing bespoke video content creation from conception to delivery.
Key services
Video Production, Editing, Motion Design
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, W3 Total Cache, WPForms Lite, Google reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
Vantage WordPress Theme
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA on contact form

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional portfolio for a video producer/editor.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  4. Contact is only via a form with Google reCAPTCHA; no direct emails or phone numbers found.
  5. No security headers detected; HTTPS is enforced.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond Google reCAPTCHA.
  7. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  8. External links mostly to client or partner websites and Vimeo video hosting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Vantage theme, supported by plugins including WPForms Lite for contact forms and W3 Total Cache for performance optimization. It uses jQuery and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site loads moderately fast and is mobile optimized with responsive design. However, accessibility features are basic and SEO optimization is minimal. There is no evidence of advanced analytics or marketing tools. The technical stack is standard for small professional service websites but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 jopotts.net. 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 jopotts.net.

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.