Skip to main content

Security report for roberts-wales.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.roberts-wales.co.uk is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page that employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to block automated access. No actual business content, contact information, or policies are available on the page, indicating that the site is either under protection by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or is misconfigured. The WHOIS lookup for the domain failed with an error from Nominet UK stating the domain name contravenes naming rules and cannot be registered, suggesting the domain is invalid or improperly set up. This severely limits the ability to analyze the website's business or security posture comprehensively. From a technical perspective, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA v3, but no other technologies, CMS, or hosting details are discernible. Security headers and HTTPS enforcement are not visible in the provided data, and no privacy or cookie policies are present. The lack of contact information and business details further reduces trustworthiness and credibility. The security posture is weak due to the absence of visible HTTPS, security headers, and transparency about data protection or incident response. The domain's invalid registration status and the presence of a blocking security verification page indicate a high risk and low legitimacy. Overall, the site scores very low on content quality, technical implementation, security, privacy compliance, and business credibility. Strategic recommendations include resolving domain registration issues, implementing HTTPS and security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, providing clear contact information, and removing or properly configuring the WAF/security verification to allow legitimate user access.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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 roberts-wales.co.uk

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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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

Due to the domain registration failure and the website being blocked by a security verification page, no meaningful business intelligence can be extracted. There is no visible information about the company's market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships. The lack of contact details and policies suggests the website is either under development, misconfigured, or intentionally restricted. No competitive advantages or growth indicators are available from the current data.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 as a bot mitigation measure, which is a positive security practice. However, the absence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and visible privacy or security policies indicates a low overall security maturity. The domain registration failure raises concerns about legitimacy and trust. There is no evidence of incident response readiness or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The security posture is weak and requires significant improvements to meet standard compliance and protection levels.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve domain registration issues with Nominet UK to ensure the domain is valid and properly registered.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  5. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and no actual business content accessible, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking full access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is inaccessible beyond a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business content, contact information, or policies are available on the page.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain registration error.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement visible in provided data.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  7. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA domains.
  8. Website appears to be blocked by a security mechanism or WAF.
  9. Content safety is rated safe but content is minimal and blocked.
  10. Overall website quality and trustworthiness are low due to lack of content and accessibility.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The site content is minimal and consists solely of a security verification form with a hidden reCAPTCHA token field. There is no evidence of SEO optimization, accessibility features, or performance enhancements. The lack of HTTPS enforcement and security headers represents technical debt and security risk. The site appears to be blocked by a WAF or similar security mechanism, limiting content accessibility and 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 roberts-wales.co.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 roberts-wales.co.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.