Skip to main content

Security report for neasenergy.com

Neas energy a/s · Oil & energy · Denmark

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
6of 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 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';…

  3. DNS health

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

    • High

      Unregistered MX Record

      MX record points to unregistered domain: rschpmfelvfeqhkbpzzk6xzadg2f7jco3c4yanu3heehuoknedzq.mx-verification.google.com

      What to do: Remove or fix MX record pointing to unregistered domain

      • RFC 5321 §5.1
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory

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

Keep watching neasenergy.com

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
0
Security headers
50
Email security
70
DNS health
75
GDPR outside view
83
Average
56

Not counted

  • Network security: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Centrica Energy targets energy sector stakeholders and customers, focusing on energy trading and supply. The business model revolves around energy services with a likely B2B and B2C audience. The company benefits from a consistent brand presence and uses structured data to enhance search engine visibility. The lack of visible contact details and terms of service pages suggests room for improvement in customer engagement and legal transparency. The external domains linked are primarily related to analytics, cookie management, and social media platforms, with no suspicious or unrelated domains detected.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented. Security headers are assumed but not explicitly confirmed. DNSSEC is not enabled, representing a minor security gap. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, and incident response contacts are not visible. The site does not show signs of WAF or security challenge blocking, indicating open accessibility. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing security policies, and enhancing header security to improve overall security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing
  2. Publish clear security policies and incident response contact information
  3. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as CSP and X-Frame-Options
  4. Add visible and verified contact information to improve trust and compliance
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting

Contact details published on the site

Legal name
Centrica Energy
Registration number
GB
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Centrica Energy
Description
Dette er en eksempelside. Den er forskellig fra et blogindlæg fordi at den vil forblive ét sted og vil dukke op i dit websteds navigation (i de fleste
Key services
energy trading, energy supply
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Swiper JS
Frameworks
Tailwind CSS (Tailpress theme)
Platforms
AWS (based on DNS nameservers)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Meta Platforms, Inc., Google AdSense
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress CMS with Tailpress theme
  2. Cookie consent implemented with Cookiebot including granular consent options
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on homepage
  4. No explicit privacy policy page found on main domain but linked to centricaenergytrading.com
  5. No terms of service or security policy pages detected
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  7. External scripts include Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot
  8. Site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  10. WHOIS data consistent with legitimate business domain
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 neasenergy.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 neasenergy.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.

neasenergy.com security report: 56/100, medium risk | Guard