Skip to main content

Security report for rcahmw.gov.uk

Other · United Kingdom

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website rcahmw.gov.uk currently presents a robot challenge screen implementing a proof-of-work CAPTCHA mechanism, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security control that blocks direct access to content. This prevents direct analysis of the actual website content, policies, or business information. The domain is a longstanding UK government domain registered since 1996 directly with Nominet, consistent with a legitimate government entity. The technical infrastructure includes advanced client-side cryptographic challenges and hosting via Amazon CloudFront CDN, demonstrating a modern approach to bot mitigation. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are visible on this challenge page, nor is any contact or business information exposed. Security headers and SSL configuration details are not available from the provided data. Overall, the site shows strong security posture in terms of bot protection but lacks visible compliance and business transparency on this page.

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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching rcahmw.gov.uk

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
50
Average
47

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 · found on this site
  • 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 blocking challenge, no direct business information, market positioning, or service details are accessible. The domain age and registration data suggest a government-related entity, likely the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (rcahmw). The business model and target audience cannot be determined from the challenge page. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable. The lack of visible content limits competitive or strategic analysis.

Security posture

The site employs a sophisticated proof-of-work CAPTCHA challenge to mitigate automated access, indicating a high level of security maturity in bot defense. However, the absence of visible security headers and lack of exposed security or incident response policies limit the assessment. No vulnerabilities are evident in the challenge page itself. The security posture is strong in access control but incomplete in transparency and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Expose privacy and cookie policies on accessible pages to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels for security and abuse reporting.
  3. Implement and expose standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to enhance security posture.
  4. Improve SEO and accessibility features on publicly accessible pages beyond the challenge screen.
  5. Consider a less intrusive bot mitigation method that allows partial content access for better user experience and analysis.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a robot challenge screen with proof-of-work CAPTCHA indicating a WAF or security mechanism blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Web Crypto API, SHA1, Web Workers
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of cryptographic challenge (Proof of Work CAPTCHA)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security challenge (proof-of-work CAPTCHA).
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details are exposed on this page.
  4. Page is minimal and serves as a gatekeeper to the actual site content.
  5. Use of advanced client-side cryptographic challenge indicates strong anti-bot measures.
  6. No SEO or accessibility features detected on this page.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. Hosting via Amazon CloudFront CDN is observed.
  9. WHOIS data indicates a legitimate, longstanding UK government domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses advanced client-side JavaScript including Web Crypto API and Web Workers to perform proof-of-work calculations as a CAPTCHA challenge. Hosting is via Amazon CloudFront CDN, indicating a scalable and performant infrastructure. The HTML is minimal and focused on the challenge mechanism, with no CMS or frameworks detected. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be fully assessed due to the blocking nature of the page. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, indicating minimal user tracking at this stage.
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 rcahmw.gov.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 rcahmw.gov.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.