Skip to main content

Security report for rcollard.com

R Collard · Transportation · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

R Collard operates as a specialized business in the construction sector, focusing on enabling works, waste management, and the production of recycled aggregates and ready-mix concrete. The company positions itself as a leader in recycling and waste management, targeting construction professionals and project managers. The website reflects a medium-sized enterprise with a professional digital presence built on WordPress and Elementor, incorporating SEO best practices and analytics tracking. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, despite the active and well-maintained website. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enabled, but lacks comprehensive security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which impacts compliance and trust. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires improvements in transparency and security documentation to enhance credibility and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

5 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. 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

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

Keep watching rcollard.com

This scan found 18 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. See sample alerts.

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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
71

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention rcollard.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
46
Employees
0
Customers
7
Third parties
39
Weak passwords
0%

3 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for rcollard.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 targets the construction industry with a B2B business model, offering critical services in waste management and recycled materials production. Their market position as leaders in recycling suggests competitive advantages in sustainability and environmental responsibility. The website content and structured data indicate a focus on enabling works and premium recycled products, appealing to environmentally conscious construction projects. The use of modern CMS and SEO tools supports digital marketing efforts. However, the lack of visible contact information and privacy policies may hinder customer trust and regulatory compliance. No clear parent or subsidiary relationships are identified, and no additional partner domains are linked. The business appears stable but could benefit from enhanced transparency and customer engagement features.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, and uses Google Tag Manager and Analytics for tracking. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security incident response contacts, limiting the ability to handle security issues proactively. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates gaps in GDPR compliance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified in the analysis. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, formal policies, and incident response mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Provide clear and verified contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
R Collard
Description
Enabling partner for construction projects. Leaders in recycling and waste management. Producers of premium recycled aggregates and RMC.
Key services
Enabling works, Waste management, Recycled aggregates production, Ready-mix concrete (RMC) production
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Rank Math SEO
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found in WHOIS registry.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected on the site.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the visible content.
  5. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor builder and SEO plugin.
  6. Google Tag Manager and Analytics scripts are present indicating tracking.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No visible certifications or security frameworks mentioned.
  9. Content is focused on construction and waste management services.
  10. No suspicious or malicious external domains detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Elementor page builder and Rank Math SEO plugin, indicating a modern and flexible technical infrastructure. Google Tag Manager and Analytics are integrated for marketing and user behavior tracking. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Performance is moderate, with some caching and CDN usage evident. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced. The absence of detected hosting provider information limits full infrastructure assessment. Overall, the technical setup supports business goals but has room for improvement in security and compliance features.
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 rcollard.com. 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 rcollard.com.

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.