Skip to main content

Security report for rdh.com

RDH · Real Estate · Canada

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

RDH is a well-established consulting and engineering firm specializing in building enclosures, facade and structural engineering, construction, energy and climate services, forensics, and asset management. The company targets clients across North America, focusing on improving building performance, resilience, and sustainability. Their website reflects a strong market position with comprehensive service offerings and a professional digital presence. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins and frameworks, optimized for performance, SEO, and mobile responsiveness. Security posture is good with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though there is room for improvement in security headers and incident response transparency. The lack of WHOIS registration data is a notable concern, impacting domain legitimacy trust. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy, but domain registration transparency should be addressed.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

  3. Network security

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

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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

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

Keep watching rdh.com

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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
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

RDH operates in the real estate and energy sectors, providing essential consulting and engineering services. Their business model is service-based, targeting architects, engineers, building owners, and asset managers. The company has a large professional team with multiple North American locations, indicating a significant market footprint. Their content strategy includes case studies, technical resources, and thought leadership, supporting their market leadership. Partnerships with digital agencies and active social media presence enhance their brand visibility. The absence of direct contact emails and phone numbers suggests a preference for controlled communication via forms. The missing WHOIS data is unusual and warrants further investigation to confirm domain ownership and legitimacy.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL configuration and uses cookie consent banners, indicating awareness of privacy compliance. However, no advanced security headers were detected, and there is no published security policy or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The use of third-party scripts like Google Tag Manager is standard but requires ongoing monitoring for security risks. The lack of DNSSEC and WHOIS transparency reduces overall domain trust. The security posture is solid but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers, publishing security policies, and providing explicit security contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add explicit security contact channels (e.g., security@rdh.com) for vulnerability reporting and incident communication.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Investigate and resolve the lack of WHOIS registration data to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
RDH
Description
RDH is a consulting and engineering firm specializing in building enclosures, facade and structural engineering, construction, energy and climate services, forensics, and asset management. They partner with clients across North America to design, investigate, and improve buildings for performance, resilience, and sustainability.
Key services
Building Enclosure Consulting, Facade Engineering, Structural Engineering, Construction, Energy & Climate, Asset Management, Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D), Training & Publications, Forensics, Historic and Heritage Consulting
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.2, Yoast SEO plugin, Gravity Forms, jQuery, Bootstrap (implied by classes and offcanvas usage), Google Tag Manager, WP Rocket
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and analytics scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is a concern for domain legitimacy.
  3. Privacy and cookie policies are present and implemented with consent mechanisms.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via form only.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Vimeo.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS with up-to-date plugins including Yoast SEO and Gravity Forms, ensuring strong SEO and form handling capabilities. The use of asynchronous script loading and caching via WP Rocket contributes to fast performance. Mobile optimization is excellent with responsive design and accessibility features. The site uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, with a cookie consent mechanism in place. No hosting provider details were identified from the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust, modern, and well-implemented, supporting a high-quality user experience.
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 rdh.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 rdh.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.