Skip to main content

Security report for kensetts.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.kensetts.co.uk currently serves only as a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge to prevent automated access. No substantive business content, contact information, or policies are present, indicating the site is either under protection or not fully deployed. The domain WHOIS lookup failed due to the domain name violating Nominet UK naming rules, suggesting the domain is invalid or unregistered. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA but lacks visible HTTPS confirmation or security headers, limiting its security posture. Overall, the site is inaccessible to normal users without passing bot verification, resulting in a low trust and credibility rating.

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. 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. 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

  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

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

Keep watching kensetts.co.uk

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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
59

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

No business information, company name, or sector details are available from the website or WHOIS data. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or terms of service further limits any business intelligence insights. The domain's invalid status and minimal content suggest the site is not operational or is in a staging/blocked state. No partnerships or related domains are identified.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal with only Google reCAPTCHA implemented for bot protection. No HTTPS or security headers are confirmed, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The site is effectively blocked behind a WAF or similar security mechanism, preventing full analysis. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps. Overall, the security maturity is low, with recommendations to implement HTTPS, security headers, and transparent policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure communications.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide accessible contact information and business details to enhance credibility.
  5. Review domain registration status and correct domain naming to ensure legitimacy and avoid WHOIS lookup failures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

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

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification
  • Form uses invisible reCAPTCHA token

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is a bot verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is present on the page.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming rule violation.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  6. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA domains.
  7. Website is likely inaccessible to normal users without passing bot verification.
  8. Security posture is minimal with no visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation.
  9. Content quality and business credibility are very low due to lack of content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification. The page content is minimal, consisting mainly of a loading spinner and an invisible reCAPTCHA form. No CMS or hosting provider information is detectable. Performance is moderate due to minimal content but user experience is poor because of the blocking mechanism. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but limited by the lack of content. SEO optimization is poor due to absence of meta tags beyond viewport and charset. The site requires modernization and improved technical transparency.
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 kensetts.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 kensetts.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.