Skip to main content

Security report for rm.com

RM · Education · United Kingdom

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

RM is a UK-based leading supplier of technology and services tailored for the education sector, supporting a wide range of educational institutions from pre-school to higher education, including examination boards and government bodies. Their offerings encompass education technology, assessment solutions, broadband, VoIP, and support services, positioning them as a comprehensive provider in the education technology market. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence with clear navigation and extensive content targeting schools, teachers, and educational institutions globally. Technically, the site employs a modern tech stack including C#, jQuery, Google Analytics, and OneTrust for cookie consent, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and use of reCAPTCHA, though some security headers and explicit policies are not evident in the provided data. The absence of WHOIS registration details limits domain trust verification but the overall digital footprint and related domains support legitimacy. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with cookie consent but lacks a clearly accessible privacy policy in the analyzed content. Overall, RM demonstrates a strong market position with room for improvement in transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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

2 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 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

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

Keep watching rm.com

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
67
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
84

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

RM operates in the education technology sector with a broad portfolio of products and services including assessment, broadband, and support services. Their market positioning as a leading supplier is supported by a diverse target audience including schools, examination boards, and governments. The business model focuses on technology provision and service delivery to educational institutions, leveraging multiple digital platforms and partner sites. The presence of dedicated domains for assessment, resources, careers, and support indicates a well-structured ecosystem. Marketing and analytics are extensively used, reflecting a data-driven approach to customer engagement. The company appears to be large in size with consistent branding and professional content. The lack of explicit company registration or VAT information in the content suggests an opportunity to enhance business credibility.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a good SSL configuration and uses Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms, indicating attention to basic security practices. Cookie consent mechanisms are implemented via OneTrust, supporting privacy compliance. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are not detected in the provided content, representing a potential area for enhancement. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, limiting transparency for security researchers. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact reduces preparedness visibility. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified in the analysis. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional headers, policies, and disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy accessible from the homepage and all relevant pages.
  2. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Create and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Add explicit incident response contact information, such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are included.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
RM
Description
RM is a leading supplier of technology and services to the education sector, supporting schools, teachers and pupils across the globe – from pre-school to higher education – including examination boards, central governments and other professional institutions. Promoting effective use of technology in education.
Key services
Education technology solutions, Assessment services, Support services, School broadband, Web filtering, VoIP telephone systems, Single sign-on, Learning devices, Networking, Audiovisual solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
C#, JavaScript, jQuery, JWPlayer, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Google reCAPTCHA
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Lead Forensics, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Lead Forensics, Google Ads, Facebook Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag
Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. Strong focus on education technology and assessment services.
  3. Multiple external trusted domains linked for services and resources.
  4. Cookie consent and privacy mechanisms implemented.
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in provided content.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable or protected, limiting domain trust verification.
  7. Use of multiple tracking and marketing scripts indicates extensive analytics and advertising.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  9. No explicit contact emails found in HTML; phone numbers provided in structured data.
  10. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using C# technology, likely on the Sitecore CMS platform, with extensive use of JavaScript libraries including jQuery and JWPlayer. It integrates multiple third-party services such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust for cookie consent, and social media tracking pixels. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts and use of CDN-hosted resources. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable online presence, though opportunities exist to enhance security headers and streamline third-party dependencies for improved security and performance.
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 rm.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 rm.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.