Skip to main content

Security report for rsvporg.co.uk

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

64/100

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

The website www.rsvporg.co.uk currently serves a security challenge page implemented by BitNinja, requiring visitors to complete a CAPTCHA to proceed. This indicates that the site is actively protected against automated or malicious traffic. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable due to a naming rules violation by Nominet UK, suggesting the domain may be invalid or misconfigured. The site uses outdated CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are known to have security vulnerabilities. Tracking is implemented via Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is disclosed. Overall, the site is in a blocked state, limiting content access and analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. 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. 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching rsvporg.co.uk

This scan found 21 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
57
Email security
65
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
64

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 lack of accessible content and absence of business information, it is not possible to determine the company's market position, business model, or target audience. The presence of outdated CMS platforms and a security challenge page suggests limited digital maturity. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The site appears to be small scale or possibly inactive given the blocking and lack of business data.

Security posture

The security posture is currently enforced by BitNinja's WAF, which blocks suspicious IPs and requires CAPTCHA validation. However, the use of outdated CMS versions poses significant security risks. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement details are visible. The site lacks privacy and cookie policies, which are important for compliance. The security score is low due to these factors, though the WAF challenge provides some protection against automated threats.

Recommendations

  1. Update Joomla and WordPress installations to the latest supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is enforced across the entire site to protect data in transit.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website content is a security challenge page by BitNinja indicating IP blocking and CAPTCHA validation to prevent automated or malicious access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Google reCAPTCHA, Google Analytics, BitNinja security
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation
  • Security challenge page by BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a security WAF challenge (BitNinja) requiring CAPTCHA validation.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available due to domain naming rules violation.
  3. Website uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which are vulnerable.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page.
  5. No contact information or business details are present.
  6. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for tracking.
  7. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement details in provided data.
  8. Content is minimal and only serves as a CAPTCHA challenge page.
  9. No adult or explicit content detected; content is safe.
  10. Due to blocking and lack of data, comprehensive analysis is limited.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which are outdated and unsupported, increasing risk exposure. Google reCAPTCHA is integrated for bot mitigation, and Google Analytics and Tag Manager are used for tracking. The site is currently serving a BitNinja security challenge page, indicating active WAF protection. Performance appears moderate but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. No modern frameworks or hosting provider details are evident. The site lacks SEO optimization and comprehensive metadata.
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 rsvporg.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 rsvporg.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.