Skip to main content

Security report for jra.co.uk

John Robertson Architects · Real Estate · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

John Robertson Architects is a reputable architectural practice operating primarily in the UK with offices in London, Edinburgh, and Lodz. They specialize in commercial, residential, and mixed-use architectural projects, offering design, planning, and project delivery services. The firm positions itself as a leading player in the architectural sector with a strong portfolio and industry recognition. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks such as Next.js and uses Sanity CMS, delivering a fast, mobile-optimized, and accessible user experience. The site employs HTTPS and a cookie consent mechanism, indicating good privacy compliance. However, the absence of WHOIS data for the domain www.jra.co.uk due to a naming rules violation introduces some uncertainty about domain registration legitimacy. Security posture is generally strong with no visible vulnerabilities, but the lack of explicit security headers and incident response information suggests room for improvement. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy, though the domain registration anomaly should be clarified to enhance credibility.

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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching jra.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. 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
52
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
67

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 company targets clients in the real estate and construction sectors seeking architectural design and project management services. Their business model revolves around delivering architectural solutions for commercial, residential, and mixed-use developments. The firm leverages digital platforms and social media to maintain visibility and engagement. Their market position is strong within their niche, supported by awards and industry recognition. The website content and structure reflect a mature digital presence with a focus on quality and user experience. Partnerships with AVCO Productions Ltd and presence on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter indicate a well-rounded marketing and communication strategy.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and includes a cookie consent banner, demonstrating awareness of privacy and security best practices. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, the absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. There is no visible security policy or incident response contact information, which could be a gap in compliance and readiness. The WHOIS data anomaly regarding domain registration is a concern but does not directly impact site security. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced with additional headers and documented policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve security posture.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and compliance.
  3. Clarify domain registration details and ensure the primary domain is properly registered to avoid trust issues.
  4. Add explicit company contact information such as emails and phone numbers on the website to improve business credibility.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are used.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
John Robertson Architects
Description
John Robertson Architects is a leading architectural practice based in London, Edinburgh, and Lodz. They design, deliver, and fit-out commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects.
Key services
Architecture, Design, Planning, Project Delivery, Fit-out
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, JavaScript, WebM/MP4 video, Sanity CMS
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner

Analytics and tracking

Services
plausible.io
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
plausible.io
Marketing tools
plausible.io
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich multimedia content
  2. No WAF or security blocking detected
  3. WHOIS data for www.jra.co.uk is unavailable due to domain naming rules violation
  4. Professional architectural firm with multiple offices
  5. Good privacy and cookie compliance
  6. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter
  8. Uses modern web technologies and CMS
  9. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern React-based framework (Next.js) combined with Sanity CMS for content management, enabling dynamic and performant content delivery. Multimedia content includes optimized video formats (WebM and MP4) hosted on CDN infrastructure (cdn.sanity.io). The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Analytics are handled via plausible.io, a privacy-focused service. No major technical debt or performance bottlenecks were observed. However, the hosting provider is not explicitly identified, and security headers are missing, which are areas for technical improvement.
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 jra.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 jra.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.