Skip to main content

Security report for kirks.co.uk

Kirks Insolvency · Finance · United Kingdom

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

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Kirks Insolvency is a UK-based professional services firm specializing in insolvency, business rescue, and recovery solutions. The company targets businesses under financial pressure, offering tailored insolvency advice and sector-specific services. Their website presents a professional image with clear contact information and a focus on client support through guides and FAQs. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins and frameworks, including CookieYes for consent management and Google Analytics for traffic analysis. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent mechanisms but lacks advanced security headers and explicit security policies. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain registration issues, which slightly impacts trustworthiness from a domain registration perspective. Overall, the website is professional, secure, and compliant with privacy norms, though it could improve transparency around security policies and incident response.

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 kirks.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. 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
37
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
83
Average
51

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

Kirks Insolvency operates in the finance sector, focusing on insolvency and business recovery services. Their business model revolves around providing expert advice and practical solutions to financially distressed businesses. The website indicates a small-sized company with a UK focus, leveraging digital channels for client engagement and information dissemination. The presence of testimonials and detailed service pages suggests a customer-centric approach. The company uses standard digital marketing and analytics tools to monitor and optimize their online presence. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the website content. The lack of WHOIS data limits insights into corporate structure but does not detract from the professional presentation and service offering.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism that categorizes cookies and allows user control. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No security policy or incident response contact information is published, which is a gap in transparency and readiness. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries based on the provided content. The use of Google Tag Manager and third-party scripts is standard but requires ongoing monitoring. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but could be enhanced with additional policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a formal security policy and incident response contact details on the website.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  3. Create and host a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate risks from vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by publishing a dedicated privacy policy and terms of service pages linked prominently.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Kirks Insolvency
Description
Is your business under financial pressure?Are you struggling to pay creditors?
Key services
Insolvency services, Business insolvency advice, Sector-specific insolvency solutions, Guides and downloads
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 7.0.2, jQuery 3.7.1, Google Tag Manager, CookieYes Consent Management, Breeze Cache Plugin, Ollie Theme, GenerateBlocks Pro
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Ads
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Cookie consent is implemented with detailed categories and user controls.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming rules violation error from Nominet UK.
  4. Website uses modern WordPress infrastructure with common plugins and tracking tools.
  5. Contact information is clearly presented with phone numbers and company email.
  6. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  9. Website content is professional and relevant to insolvency services in the UK.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 7.0.2 with a modern theme (Ollie) and uses several plugins including Breeze for caching and CookieYes for cookie consent management. It employs jQuery 3.7.1 and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple external scripts and caching strategies. The technical stack is standard for small to medium professional service websites, with opportunities to improve security headers and formalize security and privacy documentation. No hosting provider details were discernible from the content.
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 kirks.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 kirks.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.