Skip to main content

Security report for pamia.co.uk

PAMIA · Finance · United Kingdom

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

PAMIA is a specialist mutual insurance company providing professional indemnity insurance primarily to patent and trade mark attorneys in private practice across the UK and Ireland. Established in 1989, PAMIA holds a strong market position, insuring over 95% of its target audience. The business model is mutual ownership, emphasizing member control and not-for-profit operation, which allows it to offer competitive premiums and expert claims support. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting a niche professional audience with clear service offerings and regulatory compliance references. Technically, the website is built on the TYPO3 CMS platform, integrating modern technologies such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Google reCAPTCHA for security and analytics. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices and moderate performance. However, some accessibility features could be improved. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and use of CAPTCHA, though additional security headers and published security policies would enhance trust and protection. From a security and compliance perspective, the site shows good privacy and cookie policy implementation with consent mechanisms, aligning with GDPR requirements. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts were found, and no vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are published. The WHOIS lookup failed due to querying the subdomain rather than the registered domain, but this does not detract from the legitimacy of the business or domain. Overall, PAMIA demonstrates a trustworthy and professional online presence with room for security policy enhancements. Strategically, PAMIA should focus on publishing clear security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure information to strengthen its security posture and compliance transparency. Regular audits of third-party scripts and improved accessibility would further enhance the user experience and security maturity.

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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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

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

Keep watching pamia.co.uk

This scan found 19 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
77
Security headers
95
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
78

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

PAMIA operates in the financial insurance sector as a mutual insurance company focused on professional indemnity insurance for patent and trade mark attorneys. Its competitive advantage lies in its mutual ownership model, enabling lower premiums and member control. The company has a strong market presence in the UK and Ireland, insuring the vast majority of its niche market. Revenue streams are primarily insurance premiums and related services. The target customers are specialized legal professionals in private practice. The website and business show indicators of stability and maturity, with a clear partnership ecosystem involving mutual insurance experts (Thomas Miller). Strategic observations include a focus on member engagement, expert claims support, and regulatory compliance. The company’s digital presence supports its business goals but could benefit from enhanced security transparency and incident response readiness.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and Google reCAPTCHA is implemented on forms to prevent automated abuse. However, no explicit security headers were detected in the provided data, and no published security policy or incident response contact information is available. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files, which are best practices for mature security programs. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant, indicating awareness of data protection requirements. The absence of incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms represents a compliance gap and potential risk in handling security incidents. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but would benefit from formalized policies and transparency to improve trust and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  2. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Create and maintain a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website accessibility compliance to improve user experience and inclusivity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
PAMIA
Description
PAMIA, a specialist mutual insurance company, provides professional indemnity insurance to patent and trade mark attorneys in private practice.
Key services
Professional indemnity insurance, Claims support, Mutual insurance administration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
TYPO3 CMS, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
TYPO3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Google Tag Manager integration

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS lookup failure is due to querying a subdomain rather than the registered domain.
  3. Site uses modern CMS TYPO3 and integrates Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA.
  4. Clear privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanism present.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response contact found.
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  7. Contact information includes verified company email and phone number.
  8. Content is professional, relevant, and targeted to patent and trade mark attorneys.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  10. Site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on TYPO3 CMS, a mature and extensible content management system, indicating a stable technical foundation. Integration with Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager provides robust analytics and marketing capabilities. Google reCAPTCHA is used to secure forms against bots. The site is mobile optimized and has good SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data for organization and website schema. Performance is moderate, with multiple CSS and JS assets compressed and asynchronously loaded. However, no hosting provider information was detected, and security headers appear absent, which could be a technical risk. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL configuration, ensuring encrypted communications. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could be improved by adding security headers and enhancing accessibility 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 pamia.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 pamia.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.