Skip to main content

Security report for petersykeslandscapes.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.petersykeslandscapes.co.uk currently serves only a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. No actual business content, contact information, or company details are accessible. The domain WHOIS lookup fails due to a naming rules violation, providing no registrar or registrant data. This severely limits the ability to assess the business legitimacy or operational maturity. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection but lacks visible security headers or privacy policies. Overall, the site appears inaccessible to general users and lacks transparency, which negatively impacts trust and credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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';…

  2. 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

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

Keep watching petersykeslandscapes.co.uk

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

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 absence of accessible business content or contact details, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be either misconfigured or blocked by security mechanisms, preventing insight into market positioning, services, or partnerships. No related or partner domains were identified. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates any business verification or competitive analysis.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal and primarily focused on bot mitigation via Google reCAPTCHA v3. No HTTPS enforcement or security headers were detected in the provided data. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not present. Overall, the security maturity is low, with critical gaps in transparency and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Provide clear business contact information including email, phone, and physical address.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Review domain registration status and resolve naming rule violations to ensure domain legitimacy and WHOIS transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and no actual website content accessible. 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

  1. Website is inaccessible beyond a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business or contact information is present on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No WHOIS data available due to domain registration error.
  5. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA domains.
  6. No analytics or marketing tools detected beyond reCAPTCHA.
  7. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement detected in provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. The HTML content is minimal and serves only as a security verification challenge, lacking any business or marketing content. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance and SEO optimization cannot be assessed due to blocked content. Accessibility is basic with minimal ARIA or semantic markup. The technical implementation is incomplete and requires significant improvements to support a functional business website.
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 petersykeslandscapes.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 petersykeslandscapes.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.