Skip to main content

Security report for scotchstone-capital.com

Scotchstone Capital · Finance · Malta

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

34/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Scotchstone Capital operates as two distinct entities: a Malta-regulated investment fund focused on long-term value investing in liquid equities, and a UK-based consulting firm specializing in complex financial and investment-related advisory services. The website reflects a niche financial services provider with a research-driven approach and regulatory oversight. Technically, the site is built on legacy ASP.NET Web Forms with jQuery and includes a cookie consent mechanism, but lacks modern security features such as HTTPS enforcement and security headers. The security posture is moderate with room for improvement, especially in securing user login and publishing incident response policies. Overall, the website presents a professional business presence but requires enhancements in security and privacy compliance to meet modern standards.

Scanned

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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

  4. 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"

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

Keep watching scotchstone-capital.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. 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
43
Average
34

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 · found on this site
  • 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 targets sophisticated investors interested in activist and value investing strategies, leveraging regulatory recognition in Malta and a consulting presence in London. Its business model combines fund management with expert consulting services, positioning it as a specialized player in financial markets. The website content and structure support this positioning, though the absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers may limit immediate engagement. The firm appears small but established, with consistent branding and trust signals such as regulatory registration and audit mentions. No evident partnerships or subsidiaries are disclosed beyond the two main entities.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic to moderate. The site lacks HTTPS enforcement and critical security headers, exposing it to potential risks. The login form uses ASP.NET postback but lacks visible CSRF tokens or advanced protections. Cookie consent is implemented with express consent, indicating some privacy awareness. No incident response or security policy is published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. These gaps suggest limited readiness for incident handling and compliance with evolving data protection regulations. The site should prioritize HTTPS deployment, security header implementation, and formal security policies to improve posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with HSTS and ensure all site content is served securely.
  2. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enhance login form security with CSRF tokens and input validation.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd
Registration number
OC345905 (UK LLP), C48892 (Malta Fund)
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Scotchstone Capital
Description
Scotchstone Capital consists of two separate entities: Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd, a private collective investment scheme supervised by the Malta Financial Services Authority focusing on long-term investment in liquid equities with an activist approach; and Scotchstone Capital LLP, a research and consulting firm providing expert services in complex financial and investment-related matters in banking, capital markets, and litigation.
Key services
Investment management, Financial research and consulting, Expert advisory in banking and capital markets
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
ASP.NET Web Forms, jQuery, Google Fonts (Roboto), Ruffle Flash Player emulator
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Cookie consent banner with express consent
  • Form validation on login form

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF.
  2. Content is professionally presented with clear business focus.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with express consent.
  4. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  5. Login form present but lacks visible advanced security features.
  6. No social media or direct email contacts publicly listed.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond cookie consent.
  8. Website uses legacy ASP.NET Web Forms technology.
  9. No HTTPS enforcement visible in provided data; security headers missing.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on ASP.NET Web Forms, a legacy technology, supplemented by jQuery and Google Fonts. It uses a Flash emulator (Ruffle) for legacy content, indicating some outdated components. The site has basic mobile responsiveness and accessibility but lacks modern SEO and performance optimizations. No advanced analytics or marketing tools are detected, suggesting minimal tracking. The technical infrastructure appears stable but dated, with opportunities for modernization to improve performance, security, 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 scotchstone-capital.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 scotchstone-capital.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.