Skip to main content

Security report for snaponfranchise.co.uk

Other · United Kingdom

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website www.snaponfranchise.co.uk presents information about owning a Snap-on franchise in the UK, targeting potential franchise owners. The site uses modern web technologies including Next.js and React, and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for cookie consent management. However, the absence of a privacy policy, terms of service, and contact information limits transparency and user trust. The WHOIS lookup failed due to domain naming rules violations, raising concerns about domain registration legitimacy. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but lacking explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the site is functional and professionally designed but requires improvements in compliance and transparency to enhance trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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 snaponfranchise.co.uk

This scan found 16 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
77
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
78

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 model focuses on franchise ownership opportunities for Snap-on tools in the UK market. The website targets individuals interested in becoming franchise owners, providing a streamlined 7-step process. The site does not disclose detailed company information, certifications, or partnerships, limiting insights into market positioning and competitive advantages. The use of modern web frameworks indicates a commitment to digital maturity, but the lack of contact details and privacy documentation may hinder customer confidence and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic to moderate. The site uses HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks visible security headers and explicit security policies. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are provided. The absence of WHOIS data and domain registration transparency further impacts trust. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries in the provided content. To improve security posture, the site should implement comprehensive security headers, publish security policies, and provide clear incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for support and security incidents.
  3. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Clarify domain registration details and resolve WHOIS inconsistencies to enhance legitimacy.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
7 steps to own a Snap-on Franchise: While becoming a Snap-on franchise owner is a big decision, it doesn't need to be a complicated process.
Key services
franchise ownership guidance
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts, Adobe Typekit, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
Next.js, React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by canonical link
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

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 or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to domain naming rules violation.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with OneTrust.
  4. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  5. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the HTML content.
  6. Website uses modern JavaScript frameworks (Next.js, React).
  7. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in the provided data.
  9. No business certifications or security policies disclosed.
  10. Content is focused on franchise ownership information for Snap-on in the UK.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React/Next.js stack, leveraging Google Fonts and Adobe Typekit for typography, and OneTrust for cookie consent management. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking. The site appears mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. Performance is moderate, with deferred loading of JavaScript chunks. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting provider and CMS are not explicitly identified. There is room for improvement in security header implementation and explicit SSL/TLS configuration details.
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 snaponfranchise.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 snaponfranchise.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.