a(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
b(b) Incident handling: One indicator
c(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
d(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
e(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
f(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
g(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
h(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
i(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
j(j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside
Partly checked
One indicator
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.
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
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"
This scan found 27 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
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60
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
Breach exposure
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Dark web exposure
Add-on
Leaked records that mention made-in-flowers.co.uk, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for made-in-flowers.co.uk right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Business context
Business profile
No business intelligence data could be extracted due to the absence of accessible content and failed WHOIS data. The domain appears to be either misconfigured or not legitimately registered. No information about market positioning, business model, or services is available. The website does not provide any contact or company information, nor does it link to any partner or subsidiary domains. The lack of content and metadata suggests the site is either under construction, protected, or abandoned.
Security posture
The security posture is minimal, limited to Google reCAPTCHA v3 integration to prevent automated access. No HTTPS enforcement or security headers are visible in the provided HTML. No privacy, cookie, or security policies are published. The domain’s invalid status further undermines trust. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent. Overall, the site lacks comprehensive security controls and transparency, posing risks if it were to host sensitive business operations.
Recommendations
Implement a valid domain registration with proper WHOIS records to establish legitimacy.
Ensure full HTTPS deployment with strong TLS configuration and enforce HTTPS site-wide.
Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and security policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
Provide clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and support incident response.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Generic detected. Page is a security verification with Google reCAPTCHA v3, minimal content, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking full access. 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
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor
Security
Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
Analytics and tracking
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor
Advertising
Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor
Site quality
Design
basic
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low
Key observations
Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
No actual business content or navigation is accessible.
No contact information, privacy policy, or terms of service found.
WHOIS data indicates domain is invalid and cannot be registered.
No security headers or HTTPS enforcement visible in provided HTML.
External resources loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains.
No social media or business-related links present.
Website appears to be either under protection or misconfigured.
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.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with made-in-flowers.co.uk. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review made-in-flowers.co.uk.