Skip to main content

Security report for protek-fencing.co.uk

Protek Fencing Limited · Transportation · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Protek Fencing Limited is a UK-based company specializing in the installation, repair, and maintenance of highway fencing systems, safety barriers, parapets, and pedestrian guardrails. Established in 1987, the company holds several industry certifications including ISO 9001:2008 and BSI accreditations, positioning itself as a reputable player in the transportation and infrastructure sector. Their website reflects a professional business model targeting construction and highway authorities with a focus on compliance and quality service delivery. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using CherryFramework and Bootstrap, with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain registration errors, which slightly impacts trust but does not detract from the legitimacy of the business as evidenced by consistent website content and certifications. Overall, the site is professional, content-rich, and trustworthy with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 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"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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 protek-fencing.co.uk

This scan found 28 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
27
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
57

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 company operates primarily in the transportation and infrastructure sectors, offering specialized fencing and safety barrier services. Their market position is strengthened by long-standing industry certifications and a history dating back to 1987. The business model is B2B, serving government and private sector clients requiring compliant fencing solutions. The website indicates a medium-sized enterprise with a clear focus on quality and safety standards. The absence of social media presence and limited marketing tools suggests a traditional business approach relying on reputation and certifications. The partnership with Ambrow Limited for website development indicates professional digital support. Growth opportunities may include enhanced digital marketing and improved privacy compliance to meet evolving regulatory demands.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly implemented, and no sensitive data is exposed in the HTML content. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The use of WordPress and multiple plugins necessitates regular updates to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a medium-sized business but would benefit from enhancements in headers, privacy controls, and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and improve privacy compliance to align with GDPR and other data protection regulations.
  3. Regularly update WordPress core and all plugins to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  4. Create and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve incident response communication.
  5. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility features to improve user experience and SEO performance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Protek Fencing Limited
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Protek Fencing Limited
Description
Established in 1987, Protek Fencing Limited specializes in highway fencing systems, bridge parapets, off highway and car park barriers, pedestrian guardrail, perimeter and security fencing. They provide installation, repair, and maintenance services with EN1317 design assistance and maintain quality accreditation ISO 9001:2008.
Key services
Safety Barriers, Parapets, Guardrail, Crash Cushions, Varioguard, Off Highway Barriers, Pedestrian Guardrail, General Fencing
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, WordPress, CherryFramework, Contact Form 7
Frameworks
Bootstrap, CherryFramework
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure contact forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms
  2. Content is professional and relevant to fencing and safety barrier services
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain registration error message
  4. No cookie consent mechanism detected
  5. Privacy and terms pages are present and linked in footer
  6. No social media links found on the site
  7. Uses WordPress CMS with several plugins and frameworks
  8. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  9. Contact information is clearly presented with phone, email, and physical address
  10. Certifications and accreditations prominently displayed
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with CherryFramework and Bootstrap for responsive design. It uses jQuery and several JavaScript plugins for UI enhancements such as sliders and carousels. The site loads external resources from trusted CDNs like netdna.bootstrapcdn.com and s.w.org. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in mobile responsiveness and accessibility. SEO is basic with meta descriptions and canonical links but lacks advanced structured data or Open Graph tags. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. The technical infrastructure is stable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 protek-fencing.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 protek-fencing.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.