Skip to main content

Security report for stuartmichael.co.uk

Stuart Michael Associates · Transportation · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Stuart Michael Associates is a well-established UK-based consulting engineering firm specializing in transportation, environmental, infrastructure, and civil design services. Founded in 1988, the company operates independently with director ownership and serves both public and private sector clients across the UK. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence, offering detailed information about their services and company ethos. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using Bootstrap and common plugins, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though lacking explicit security headers and published security policies. Analytics tools like Google Analytics and Tag Manager are present but blocked pending user consent, reflecting good privacy compliance. Overall, the site is trustworthy and business-appropriate, though WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable due to query errors, which slightly impacts domain legitimacy verification.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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

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
    • High

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 27 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates

  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';…

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

Keep watching stuartmichael.co.uk

This scan found 22 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
47
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
69

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 company holds a strong market position as a mid-sized, independent engineering consultancy with a broad service portfolio spanning transport, environmental engineering, infrastructure, and renewable energy sectors. Their business model focuses on project-based consulting services with a history of over 5,000 commissions. The target audience includes public and private sector clients in the UK. The website supports their credibility with clear contact details, accreditations, and comprehensive policy documents. The firm appears to maintain a professional partnership ecosystem and emphasizes staff training and equal opportunity employment. Growth indicators include a regional office and a regularly updated blog.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with enforced HTTPS and a robust cookie consent mechanism that blocks tracking scripts until consent is given. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No incident response or security policy pages were found, and no dedicated security contact channels are provided. The blocking of analytics scripts until consent is a positive privacy practice but may reduce data accuracy. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a consulting firm but could be improved with additional headers and published security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance site security.
  2. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Optimize analytics script loading to balance privacy compliance with data accuracy, possibly by deferred loading after consent.
  4. Conduct a WHOIS domain registration audit to ensure domain registration details are accurate and consistent with business claims.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain and improve security posture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Stuart Michael Associates Ltd
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Stuart Michael Associates
Description
A leading firm of consulting engineers providing expert advice in transportation, water, environmental, infrastructure and civils design services. Established in 1988, independent and director-owned, serving public and private sectors across the UK.
Key services
Transportation, Environmental Engineering, Infrastructure, Civil Design, Strategic Promotion of Land for Development, Residential, Retail (Food & Non Food), Renewable Energy, Utilities, Local & Central Government
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Contact Form 7, Easy Fancybox, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager (blocked), Google Analytics (blocked), Google reCAPTCHA (blocked)
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • Privacy policy and cookie policy present

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics (blocked)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Google Tag Manager (blocked), Google Analytics (blocked)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no WAF or blocking detected.
  2. WHOIS lookup failed due to querying 'www' subdomain instead of base domain.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed user controls.
  4. Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts are blocked pending consent.
  5. Contact information is clearly presented in header and footer.
  6. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and Bootstrap framework.
  7. No explicit security headers detected in provided data.
  8. No security or incident response policies found on site.
  9. Content is professional and business-focused with no adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap framework and uses several common plugins such as Contact Form 7 and Easy Fancybox. It integrates Microsoft Clarity for user behavior analytics and attempts to use Google Analytics and Tag Manager, though these are blocked by the cookie consent mechanism. The site loads jQuery and various jQuery UI components, indicating a somewhat traditional tech stack. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness. The site lacks advanced security headers and does not expose sensitive data. There is room for modernization by adopting newer JavaScript frameworks and improving security configurations.
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 stuartmichael.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 stuartmichael.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.