Skip to main content

Security report for redbulladvancedtechnologies.com

Red Bull Advanced Technologies · Transportation · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Red Bull Advanced Technologies is a specialized engineering division within the Red Bull Racing Group focused on high-performance vehicle technology and motorsport innovation. Their market position is strong within the motorsport and advanced automotive engineering sectors, offering services such as hypercar development, fuel cell technology, and race bike engineering. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence targeting motorsport enthusiasts, technology partners, and potential engineering talent. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a custom theme, uses nginx web server, and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization, though accessibility is basic. Security posture is moderate with a valid SSL certificate but lacks modern TLS protocols and security headers. Privacy and terms policies are present and comprehensive, but cookie consent mechanisms and vulnerability disclosure policies are absent. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but could improve security and compliance features.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of redbulladvancedtechnologies.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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. 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. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching redbulladvancedtechnologies.com

This scan found 19 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
65
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
66

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

The company operates as an essential entity within the transportation and technology sectors, leveraging its parent company Red Bull Racing Group's brand and resources. Its business model centers on engineering and technology development for high-performance vehicles and motorsport applications. The target audience includes motorsport fans, technology collaborators, and skilled engineers seeking career opportunities. The company maintains a medium size with a focused market niche. Partnerships with technology firms like AVL and BMC indicate a collaborative ecosystem. The website content and structure support brand consistency and market positioning, though direct contact information is limited to a contact page form. The use of multiple Google Tag Manager containers suggests active marketing and analytics efforts.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The site uses a valid SSL certificate issued by a reputable CA but does not support modern TLS versions (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) which is a notable gap. Security headers are minimal, and DNSSEC is not enabled, reducing DNS security. No explicit security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, which could impact incident handling and transparency. Privacy policy is comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but cookie consent is missing despite tracking scripts. The absence of a security.txt file and lack of email or phone contacts for security incidents indicate limited incident response readiness. Overall, the security culture appears basic with room for improvement in best practices and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols to improve SSL/TLS security and compatibility.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS usage.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  5. Publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve security communication and incident response.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on nginx servers with DNS managed by UltraDNS. It uses WordPress CMS with a custom theme and integrates third-party JavaScript libraries including Typekit fonts and Google Tag Manager. The site has fast load times and good mobile optimization but lacks advanced accessibility features. The absence of JSON-LD or Open Graph metadata limits SEO richness. DNSSEC and CAA records are not configured, which could be improved for DNS security. The SSL certificate is valid but the lack of modern TLS protocols and security headers indicates technical debt in security configuration. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid for business operations but requires modernization to meet current security and compliance standards.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 67/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with redbulladvancedtechnologies.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 redbulladvancedtechnologies.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.