Skip to main content

Security report for queenshotelcheltenham.co.uk

Queens Hotel Cheltenham · Hospitality · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Queens Hotel Cheltenham is a small hospitality business operating a hotel in Cheltenham, United Kingdom. The website serves as an online presence to provide information about accommodation services and facilitate bookings. The business appears to be locally focused with a straightforward service offering targeting travelers and visitors to the Cheltenham area. The domain has been registered since 2015, supporting a credible and established online footprint. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and uses standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS. The site shows moderate performance and good mobile optimization, though accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic. The presence of Google Analytics indicates some level of user tracking, but privacy compliance is lacking due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies. From a security perspective, HTTPS is enabled ensuring encrypted communications. However, the site lacks important security headers and does not provide visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. Forms are present but no explicit security mechanisms like CSRF tokens were identified. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved to enhance trust and compliance. The overall risk assessment is moderate with no critical issues detected. Strategic recommendations include implementing comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms, adding security headers, and publishing incident response contacts. These steps will improve compliance, security posture, and user trust.

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. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  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 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching queenshotelcheltenham.co.uk

This scan found 24 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
37
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
63

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

Queens Hotel Cheltenham operates in the hospitality sector as a small hotel business. Its market position is local, serving visitors to Cheltenham. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on accommodation and hospitality. Revenue streams likely come from room bookings and related services. The website targets travelers and tourists seeking accommodation in Cheltenham. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The company appears to maintain consistent branding and professional content, though trust indicators like certifications or testimonials are not evident. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships are not disclosed.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security maturity level with HTTPS enabled, which is mandatory. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. Compliance gaps exist due to missing privacy and cookie policies, which are important for GDPR adherence. Overall, the security culture appears minimal but functional, with room for significant improvement.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with user consent mechanisms to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Add essential security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against web attacks.
  3. Establish and disclose an incident response policy and contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Enhance form security by implementing anti-CSRF tokens and input validation to prevent injection attacks.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to avoid vulnerabilities and improve performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Queens Hotel Cheltenham
Description
A hotel business located in Cheltenham offering accommodation and hospitality services.
Key services
Hotel accommodation, Hospitality services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (implied by gtag function)
Marketing tools
Google Tag Manager (implied)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based hotel site with moderate technical implementation.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  3. Contact information is limited to contact forms; no explicit emails or phone numbers found.
  4. Security headers are missing; HTTPS is enabled.
  5. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information present.
  6. Content is professionally presented and relevant to hospitality industry.
  7. No advertising networks detected except Google Analytics tracking.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, leveraging standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS. It uses asynchronous loading for some scripts and preloads fonts for performance optimization. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and uses modern CSS variables for theming. Performance is moderate with some deferred script loading. SEO is basic with meta viewport and author tags present but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags detected. Accessibility features are minimal but the site uses semantic HTML elements. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Technical debt appears low but security-related technical improvements are needed.
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 queenshotelcheltenham.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 queenshotelcheltenham.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.