Skip to main content

Security report for ptarmigan.co.uk

Ptarmigan Design · Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

56/100

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

Ptarmigan Design presents itself as a creative graphic design service specializing in corporate identity, literature, packaging, and pharmaceutical design primarily targeting businesses in Yorkshire. The website is minimalistic, serving mainly as a landing page with limited content and navigation. The technical infrastructure is basic, relying on legacy HTML and JavaScript with Google Analytics for tracking, but lacking modern CMS or frameworks. Security posture is weak, with no evidence of HTTPS or security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies to indicate GDPR compliance. The domain registration is problematic, flagged by Nominet as invalid, which raises concerns about legitimacy and trustworthiness. Overall, the site demonstrates low digital maturity and requires significant improvements in security, compliance, and content richness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

5 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. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching ptarmigan.co.uk

This scan found 16 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. 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
0
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
56

Not counted

  • Security headers: 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

The company operates in the graphic design sector with a focus on corporate and packaging design services. Its market positioning appears local and specialized, but the lack of detailed business information, contact details, and certifications limits credibility. The business model is service-based, targeting corporate clients needing design solutions. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The minimal online presence and domain registration issues suggest a small-scale operation with limited digital footprint and growth indicators.

Security posture

The security maturity level is low. The absence of HTTPS and security headers exposes users to potential risks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found. The use of Google Analytics without privacy safeguards further weakens privacy posture. The domain registration irregularities add to the risk profile. Overall, the site is vulnerable to trust and security concerns that could impact business reputation and user confidence.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance transparency.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  4. Address domain registration issues by ensuring proper and valid domain registration with Nominet.
  5. Incorporate security headers and conduct regular security audits to strengthen security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ptarmigan Design
Description
Creative Graphic Designers Specialising in Corporate Identity, Literature and Packaging.
Key services
Graphic Design, Corporate Identity, Logo Design, Literature Design and Print, Website Design, Packaging Design, Pharmaceutical Design Service, Exhibitions and Displays, Livery Design, Advertising Design
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly a landing page with a link to enter the main site.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information such as emails or phone numbers present.
  4. Uses Google Analytics for tracking without visible privacy compliance.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. WHOIS data indicates domain is invalid or improperly registered.
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  8. Website is basic and lacks modern technical and security best practices.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML with legacy character encoding (ISO-8859-1) and includes JavaScript for Google Analytics tracking. There is no evidence of modern frameworks, CMS, or responsive design, resulting in poor mobile optimization and accessibility. Performance is moderate but could be improved with modern technologies and optimization. The lack of security headers and HTTPS indicates technical debt and potential risks. The site would benefit from modernization including adoption of HTML5, CSS3, responsive design, 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 ptarmigan.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 ptarmigan.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.