Skip to main content

Security report for julius-r.co.uk

Julius Rutherfoord & Co Ltd · Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Julius Rutherfoord & Co Ltd is a well-established commercial cleaning company based in London, founded in 1994. The company positions itself as a sustainable and ethical service provider, certified as a B Corporation, serving demanding clients in sectors such as offices, education, science & technology, and heritage buildings. Their business model focuses on delivering high-quality cleaning services with an emphasis on training, technology, and respect for their workforce. The website reflects a mature digital presence built on WordPress, integrating modern technologies like GSAP, HubSpot, and Google Analytics, and includes comprehensive privacy and cookie consent mechanisms. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and CAPTCHA protections on forms, though some security headers could be improved. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming rules issues, which slightly impacts trust from a domain registration perspective but does not detract from the professional presentation and content quality of the site. Overall, the company demonstrates strong business credibility and digital maturity.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

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 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';…

  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
    • 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 julius-r.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
49
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
64

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 commercial clients in London requiring specialized cleaning services, particularly in challenging environments. Their competitive advantage lies in their sustainability credentials, ethical business practices, and long-standing market presence. The business model is service-oriented with direct employment of cleaning staff and a focus on transparent performance and technology adoption. The partnership ecosystem includes B Corp certification and client portals, enhancing client engagement. Growth indicators include recent awards and sustainability reporting. The website content and client testimonials reinforce a trustworthy and professional brand image.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with good SSL configuration and uses CAPTCHA to protect forms, indicating a baseline security maturity. Cookie consent is managed via CookieYes, supporting GDPR compliance. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available, which is a gap in transparency. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced by implementing additional HTTP security headers and publishing security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Regularly audit and update all third-party scripts and WordPress plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance monitoring of user data collection and retention practices to ensure ongoing GDPR compliance.
  5. Consider resolving the domain WHOIS registration issues or clarifying domain ownership to strengthen domain trustworthiness.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Julius Rutherfoord & Co Ltd
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Julius Rutherfoord & Co Ltd
Description
JR&Co offers commercial cleaning with a difference: the power of undivided attention. Proudly serving London and certified as a B Corp.
Key services
Commercial cleaning, Specialisms in offices, education, science & technology, heritage buildings
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, GSAP, Flexslider, Fancybox, HubSpot scripts, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, CookieYes consent management
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with customization
  • Use of CAPTCHA on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads, LinkedIn Ads
Tracking pixels
HubSpot, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
HubSpot, CookieYes
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 content and no blocking detected.
  2. Professional commercial cleaning service focused on London area.
  3. Strong emphasis on sustainability and ethical business practices.
  4. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent management.
  5. Multiple contact methods including forms, email, phone, and physical address.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  7. No security policy or incident response information publicly available.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, which is a concern but content suggests legitimate business.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including jQuery, GSAP for animations, Flexslider for carousels, and HubSpot for marketing and analytics. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Cookie consent and privacy compliance are managed effectively. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. The site uses multiple external domains for fonts, analytics, and marketing scripts. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which require regular security reviews. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly experience.
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 julius-r.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 julius-r.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.