Skip to main content

Security report for mastersgroup.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in DNS health, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.mastersgroup.co.uk presents a minimal login portal branded as 'NetDirector' with no publicly accessible business information or descriptive content. The domain WHOIS query failed due to an invalid domain format, indicating the domain is either not registered or misconfigured, which raises significant trust concerns. Technically, the site uses an outdated jQuery version and relies on Amazon CloudFront CDN for static content delivery. There is no evidence of HTTPS usage or security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating a low level of security and privacy maturity. Overall, the site appears to be an internal or restricted access portal rather than a public business website.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 13 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  2. 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';…

  3. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching mastersgroup.co.uk

This scan found 20 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
79
Security headers
65
Email security
80
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
69

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

Due to the lack of public business information, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The site does not provide contact details, company registration data, or any trust signals such as certifications or testimonials. The absence of these elements suggests the site is not intended for public commercial engagement but rather for internal or client-specific access. No partnerships or related domains were identified from the content.

Security posture

The security posture is weak, with no HTTPS detected, no security headers, and use of an outdated JavaScript library with known vulnerabilities. Client-side validation is present but insufficient without server-side controls. The absence of privacy and cookie policies further indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The invalid domain registration status adds to the risk profile, suggesting potential operational or legitimacy issues.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Upgrade all JavaScript libraries to supported, secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  4. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Validate domain registration and ensure WHOIS information is accurate and complete to improve legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.9.1
Frameworks
Yii Framework (implied by yiiActiveForm usage)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Form input validation on client side

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is a login portal titled 'NetDirector' with minimal content
  2. No public business information or contact details found
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  4. No security headers or HTTPS information available
  5. Use of outdated jQuery library version 1.9.1
  6. Content is minimal and does not represent a public-facing business website
  7. WHOIS data indicates domain is invalid or not registered properly
  8. No social media or external business links found except CDN and Google hosted scripts
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses jQuery 1.9.1 loaded from Google's CDN and serves static assets via Amazon CloudFront. The presence of Yii framework client-side validation scripts suggests a PHP backend using Yii framework. The site lacks HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which are critical for modern web security. Performance is moderate due to CDN usage, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO is poor due to minimal metadata and no content. The site appears to be a simple login portal without CMS or advanced platform features.
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 mastersgroup.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 mastersgroup.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.