Skip to main content

Security report for landmarkifa.co.uk

Landmark IFA Limited · Finance · United Kingdom

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 4 other checks.

Security score

39/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Landmark IFA Limited is a UK-based independent financial advisory firm established in 2004, specializing in bespoke financial planning services for high net worth individuals, business owners, and affluent professionals. The company manages over £1 billion in client assets and has been recognized as a top 100 firm by FT Adviser in 2024 and 2025. Their services include wealth management, retirement planning, and inheritance tax planning, delivered through a client-focused and relationship-driven business model. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with comprehensive content tailored to their target audience. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Elementor, leveraging modern web technologies and providing good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and secure form handling, though some security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms like cookie consent are missing. Overall, the domain registration and WHOIS data align well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 20 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  4. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching landmarkifa.co.uk

This scan found 29 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
40
DNS health
45
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
58
Average
39

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 holds a strong market position in the UK financial advisory sector, targeting sophisticated investors and business owners. Their competitive advantages include long-standing industry experience, FCA authorization, and recognition by industry bodies. The business model focuses on personalized advisory services with a strong emphasis on client relationships and asset growth. Revenue streams likely derive from advisory fees and wealth management services. The firm maintains a regional presence with multiple office locations and a client portal partnership. Growth indicators include asset under management expansion and industry awards. The partnership ecosystem includes client portal services hosted on a related domain. Strategic observations suggest continued focus on high net worth clients and expansion of advisory services.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security hardening. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could impact client trust and regulatory compliance. The lack of a cookie consent mechanism is a GDPR compliance gap. No known vulnerabilities or malicious scripts were detected in the provided HTML content. The security score is good but could be improved by implementing recommended headers, privacy notices, and incident response disclosures. Overall, the security culture appears professional but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a visible cookie consent banner to ensure GDPR compliance and user transparency.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve site security.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Consider creating a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Landmark IFA Limited
Description
Landmark IFA Limited provides bespoke, quality financial planning advice focused on wealth creation, preservation, and tax exposure reduction. They serve high net worth individuals, business owners, younger affluent professionals, retirees, and families.
Key services
Independent Financial Advisers, Financial Planning, Retirement Planning, Wealth Management, UK Inheritance Tax Planning
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, jQuery, Swiper.js
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with placeholders and input styling

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich.
  2. Strong trust signals including FCA authorization and FT Adviser awards.
  3. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  4. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR compliance indication.
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content; contact is via form.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in the provided HTML.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using the Elementor page builder, jQuery, and Swiper.js for interactive elements. The site loads external fonts from Google Fonts and uses SVG images for logos and icons, contributing to a visually appealing and responsive design. Performance is moderate, with some custom CSS and JavaScript for styling and interactivity. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design breakpoints and accessible navigation menus. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. Hosting and domain registration are managed by a reputable UK provider, 123-Reg Limited. Technical risks are minimal, but the absence of some security headers and privacy mechanisms indicates areas for modernization and compliance improvement.
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 landmarkifa.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 landmarkifa.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.