Skip to main content

Security report for jradminassist.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.jradminassist.co.uk appears to be a small business site built using the Wix platform, likely intended to offer administrative assistance services. However, the site content is minimal and lacks substantive business descriptions, contact information, or trust signals. The domain WHOIS data indicates the domain is invalid or not properly registered under Nominet UK rules, which raises concerns about the legitimacy and ownership of the domain. Technically, the site uses standard Wix scripts and polyfills but lacks advanced SEO, accessibility, and security features. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no contact or incident response information is available, indicating low compliance with privacy regulations. Overall, the site has a poor security posture and low business credibility, with significant room for improvement in content quality, security, and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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

3 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. 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';…

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

Keep watching jradminassist.co.uk

This scan found 21 issues across 5 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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
73

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

Due to the lack of detailed business information, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or competitive advantages of the entity behind the site. The absence of contact details and business descriptions suggests the site may be in early development or not actively maintained. There are no indications of partnerships, certifications, or growth indicators. The business model and target audience remain unclear. The site appears to be a basic online presence for a small administrative assistance service, but without sufficient data to confirm operational status or market engagement.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. The domain is not properly registered, which is a critical trust and legitimacy issue. The site lacks security headers and does not demonstrate implementation of best practices such as CSP or X-Frame-Options. No HTTPS status was verifiable from the data, though Wix typically provides HTTPS by default. There are no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data, but the absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, indicates poor compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The site does not appear to use analytics or tracking services, which reduces privacy risks but also limits business intelligence capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Register a valid domain name compliant with Nominet UK rules to establish legitimacy.
  2. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  3. Add clear business contact information including emails and phone numbers to improve trust and credibility.
  4. Enhance website security by enabling HTTPS, adding security headers, and following best practices.
  5. Improve website content quality, SEO, and accessibility to provide a professional user experience and increase visibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Wix.com Website Builder, JavaScript, Core-js polyfill, Focus-within polyfill, Intl.Segmenter polyfill
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and assets.
  2. WHOIS data indicates domain is invalid or not registered properly.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact information such as emails or phone numbers found in the content.
  5. No security headers or advanced security practices detected.
  6. Website content is minimal or placeholder-like with no meaningful business information.
  7. No analytics or tracking services detected.
  8. No social media or external business-related links found.
  9. No evidence of WAF or security blocking mechanisms.
  10. Website lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Wix and uses Wix's standard JavaScript libraries and polyfills for compatibility. The site includes polyfills for Intl.Segmenter and focus-within, indicating some attention to browser compatibility. However, the site lacks advanced frameworks or custom technologies. Performance is moderate, typical of Wix-hosted sites. Mobile optimization is basic but present. SEO optimization is poor due to missing meta tags and structured data. Accessibility features are minimal, with some basic focus ring styles. There is no evidence of analytics or marketing tools integrated. The site would benefit from modernization efforts including improved SEO, accessibility, and 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 jradminassist.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 jradminassist.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.