Skip to main content

Security report for smithfieldmarket.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Smithfieldmarket.com is a website established in 2006, likely representing a small business entity. The site is built on WordPress CMS and utilizes common frontend libraries such as Semantic UI, Flowbite, and Font Awesome, with SEO optimization handled by the Yoast SEO plugin. The website content is minimal with no detailed business description or contact information visible in the provided data. The domain registration is consistent and stable, with no privacy protection, indicating transparency and legitimacy. However, the absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as lack of contact details, reduces the overall trust and compliance posture. Security-wise, HTTPS is enabled and domain status flags provide protection against unauthorized changes, but DNSSEC is not enabled and security headers are not detected, suggesting room for improvement.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

8 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: Cloudflare

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

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

Keep watching smithfieldmarket.com

This scan found 26 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
47
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
47

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 business behind smithfieldmarket.com appears to be a small-scale operation with limited online presence and minimal published information. The lack of explicit business descriptions, contact details, or certifications limits insights into market positioning or revenue streams. The website targets a general audience but does not clearly define its business model or sector. The use of standard web technologies and SEO plugins indicates some digital maturity, but the absence of marketing or analytics tools suggests limited digital marketing efforts. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified, and no social media presence was found in the provided content.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled and domain registration protections in place. However, the lack of DNSSEC, missing security headers, and absence of published security or incident response policies indicate gaps in security best practices. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, and no contact channels for security incidents are provided. These factors suggest limited readiness for incident response and compliance with data protection regulations. The website would benefit from implementing DNSSEC, security headers, and publishing clear security policies to enhance trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen domain name system security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility and user trust.
  4. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact channels to improve security posture and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Semantic UI, Flowbite, Font Awesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage or metadata
  3. No contact information such as emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin and common frontend libraries
  5. No explicit security policies or incident response information published
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected
  7. No business legal information such as VAT or registration numbers found
  8. Website content is minimal and lacks detailed business description or trust signals
  9. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond font and UI libraries
  10. SEO metadata is present but content is sparse
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a standard CMS-based infrastructure. Frontend technologies include Semantic UI, Flowbite, and Font Awesome for UI components and icons. The site loads resources from reputable CDNs such as jsdelivr.net and cdnjs.cloudflare.com. DNS is managed via domaincontrol.com, and the registrar is 123-Reg Limited. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and SEO metadata present. Accessibility features are basic, and no advanced frameworks or platforms were detected. The site lacks advanced analytics or marketing tools, suggesting limited technical complexity and digital marketing integration.
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 smithfieldmarket.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 smithfieldmarket.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.