Skip to main content

Security report for kensalgreencemetery.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website kensalgreencemetery.com is currently inaccessible beyond a bot verification challenge page employing Google reCAPTCHA invisible technology. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or security mechanism designed to prevent automated access. Due to this blocking, no substantive business content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain is registered with IONOS SE since 2005, indicating a mature and likely legitimate domain, but the lack of accessible content limits the ability to assess the business or its digital maturity. Technically, the site uses Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation but lacks DNSSEC and security headers based on the provided data, suggesting opportunities for improving domain and web security. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies and contact details further reduces compliance and trustworthiness from a user perspective. Security posture is moderate given the use of HTTPS (implied by domain and reCAPTCHA usage) but is weakened by missing security headers and DNSSEC. The blocking mechanism itself is a security strength but also a barrier to user access and content evaluation. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility due to the blocking and lack of visible information. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear contact and incident response information to improve transparency and compliance. Additionally, reviewing the WAF configuration to balance security and user accessibility would enhance user experience and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

7 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 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • 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 kensalgreencemetery.com

This scan found 23 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. 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
53

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 bot verification page blocking access, no direct business information such as company name, services, or market positioning is available. The domain age suggests an established entity, possibly related to cemetery services given the domain name. The lack of visible content or contact details limits insights into revenue streams, customer segments, or partnerships. No analytics or advertising tools are detected, indicating minimal digital marketing activity or tracking. The business likely operates in a niche or local market segment but cannot be confirmed without further data.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA invisible as a bot mitigation technique, which is a positive security control. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents missed opportunities to harden the site against common web attacks. No privacy or incident response policies are published, which is a compliance gap. The domain registration is consistent and protected against unauthorized transfers, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with additional controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement standard security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and security readiness.
  5. Review and optimize WAF and bot verification settings to reduce user friction while maintaining security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a bot verification challenge with Google reCAPTCHA invisible, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
reCAPTCHA
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 invisible

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 content is blocked behind a bot verification page using Google reCAPTCHA invisible.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No security headers or DNSSEC enabled, indicating room for security improvements.
  5. Domain WHOIS data is consistent and indicates a legitimate registration.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond reCAPTCHA.
  7. Website content quality and professionalism cannot be assessed due to blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Google reCAPTCHA invisible for bot verification, indicating some level of security awareness. The domain is hosted with IONOS SE, a reputable provider. No CMS or other frameworks are detectable from the provided data. The HTML content is minimal and uses charset windows-1252, which is somewhat outdated. No SEO or accessibility meta tags are present, and no analytics or marketing scripts are detected. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content but cannot be fully assessed. Mobile optimization is basic due to minimal content and viewport meta tag presence. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and could benefit from modernization and improved SEO and accessibility practices.
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 kensalgreencemetery.com. 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 kensalgreencemetery.com.

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.