Skip to main content

Security report for lff-group.com

LFF Group · Energy · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 9 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

LFF Group is a well-established global supplier specializing in pipes, fittings, flanges, and valves primarily serving the oil, gas, petrochemical, power, and water industries. With over 40 years of experience and a presence in 15 global locations, the company offers project management, supply chain management, MRO, and system integration services. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image targeting industry professionals and project managers. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies such as Bootstrap, jQuery, and various plugins to deliver a responsive and visually appealing experience. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trust. Security posture is moderate with no visible security headers and lack of privacy and cookie policies, which impacts compliance and user trust. Google Analytics is used for user tracking without clear privacy compliance indicators. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires improvements in security and compliance transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

9 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. 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

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

Keep watching lff-group.com

This scan found 22 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
77
Security headers
20
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
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

The LFF Group holds a strong market position as a trusted supplier and project management partner in the energy sector, particularly oil and gas. Their business model focuses on B2B supply and project services with strategic subsidiaries like Spromak and Dyform Jenkins Dunn enhancing their portfolio. The company targets large industrial clients requiring specialized fluid handling components and services. Their global footprint and industry approvals from ExxonMobil and Shell provide competitive advantages. The website content and structure support their business goals, though the lack of visible privacy and security policies may affect client confidence in regulated markets. The absence of WHOIS data is a notable risk factor that should be addressed to maintain credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS presumably enabled (though SSL configuration details are not provided), but lacks critical security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options. No forms or input fields are present on the homepage, reducing immediate attack surface, but absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No incident response or security contact information is provided, limiting transparency and readiness. The missing WHOIS data is a significant red flag for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires enhancements in headers, policies, and domain registration transparency to improve risk posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add and configure security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance site security.
  3. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS registration data to ensure domain legitimacy and build trust.
  4. Provide clear incident response and security contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LFF Group
Description
The LFF Group is a major supplier of pipe, fittings, flanges and valves in all material grades to the oil, gas, petrochemical, power and water industries around the world. Established in 1983, it has grown into a global organisation with offices in 15 locations worldwide, serving the fluid handling industries with project management, supply chain management, MRO, and system integration services.
Key services
Project Management, Supply Chain Management, MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Operations), System Integration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Fonts, Owl Carousel, Magnific Popup, Revolution Slider, Modernizr
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found on the site.
  3. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  4. Contact information is clearly presented with company emails and phone numbers.
  5. No visible security headers detected in HTML source.
  6. Uses modern web technologies and frameworks.
  7. Google Analytics is used for tracking without visible privacy compliance.
  8. No forms detected on the homepage or main content for data collection.
  9. No social media links explicitly found in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and widely adopted technology stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for scripting, and various plugins for enhanced UI features like sliders and popups. The site loads multiple Google Fonts and uses Google Analytics for tracking. Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading but could benefit from optimization. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design elements. Accessibility is basic with no explicit ARIA roles or accessibility features detected. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph tags but lacks structured data like JSON-LD. Hosting provider and CMS are not identifiable from the source. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could be improved with enhanced accessibility and performance tuning.
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 lff-group.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 lff-group.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.