Skip to main content

Security report for makingprojectswork.co.uk

Making Projects Work · Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Making Projects Work is a UK-based small consultancy specializing in project facilitation, capability development, coaching, mentoring, and speaking services. The company positions itself as a niche provider helping organizations transform challenging projects into creative and collaborative efforts. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear contact information and a focus on service offerings tailored to project teams and managers. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using the Divi theme, enhanced with Google Fonts and Google Analytics via the MonsterInsights plugin. The infrastructure is modern and mobile-optimized, providing a good user experience and SEO foundation. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, but lacks advanced security headers and formal security policies. Privacy compliance is limited due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies or consent mechanisms. Overall, the domain registration is consistent with the business profile, showing a long-standing presence since 2006. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance and security policies would enhance trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 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
    • 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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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 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';…

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

Keep watching makingprojectswork.co.uk

This scan found 23 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
47
Security headers
55
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
68

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 business operates in the consulting sector, focusing on project management facilitation and capability building. Its market position is that of a specialized boutique consultancy targeting project teams and organizational leaders. Revenue streams likely derive from service engagements including facilitated sessions, coaching, mentoring, and speaking engagements. The company leverages digital presence primarily for marketing and client engagement, with no evident e-commerce or transactional platform. The partnership ecosystem is minimal with no explicit partner domains identified. Growth indicators include a stable domain age and consistent branding. The business model emphasizes personalized service delivery rather than product sales, aligning with a small enterprise profile.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data in the HTML. However, it lacks implementation of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no visible incident response or security policy documentation, nor a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. The use of standard WordPress plugins and themes suggests a need for regular updates to prevent vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is partial, with no cookie consent mechanism or privacy policy detected, which may pose regulatory risks under GDPR. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be significantly improved with formal policies and technical hardening.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to obtain user consent for tracking.
  3. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  4. Create and publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure program, including a security.txt file.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  6. Consider adding accessibility improvements to enhance inclusivity and compliance.
  7. Enhance transparency by including certifications or trust badges if applicable.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Making Projects Work
Description
Taking projects from hard slog to creative collaborative
Key services
Facilitating Your Meetings, Developing your capability, Coaching & Mentoring, Speaking
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Google Fonts, Google Analytics (MonsterInsights plugin), DG Divi Carousel plugin
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
MonsterInsights Google Analytics plugin
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and standard plugins
  2. No visible privacy or cookie policy pages found
  3. Contact information is clearly displayed in the header
  4. Google Analytics is implemented via MonsterInsights plugin
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present
  6. No security headers detected in the HTML content
  7. Website content is professional and business-focused
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content
  9. Domain registration is stable and consistent with business claims
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with the Divi theme, leveraging Google Fonts for typography and Google Analytics for visitor tracking via the MonsterInsights plugin. The site uses DG Divi Carousel plugin for enhanced UI components. Hosting appears to be with Ionos SE as the registrar, though hosting provider specifics are not explicit. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts and deferred CSS loading. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design elements evident. SEO is supported by meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter Cards, and JSON-LD structured data. Accessibility is basic, with no explicit ARIA roles or advanced accessibility features detected. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance tools.
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 makingprojectswork.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 makingprojectswork.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.