Skip to main content

Security report for szcworkstracker.co.uk

Sizewell C Ltd · Energy · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Sizewell C Ltd operates the Sizewell C Works Tracker website, an official platform designed to provide up-to-date information and alerts about the construction progress of the Sizewell C nuclear power project in the United Kingdom. The website targets local residents, stakeholders, and interested parties by offering detailed activity updates, filtering options, and subscription services for alerts. The business model focuses on community engagement and transparent communication regarding construction activities. Technically, the website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing popular plugins such as Gravity Forms for data collection and Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Maps API to enhance tracking and mapping functionalities. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate and could benefit from further optimization. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with an excellent SSL configuration and employs best practices such as nonce tokens and honeypot fields in forms to mitigate spam. However, it lacks explicit security headers and a published security or incident response policy. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, indicating a solid security posture. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and well-aligned with the business objectives of Sizewell C Ltd. It effectively balances user engagement, technical implementation, and privacy compliance, making it a reliable resource for its audience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
5of 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. 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

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  4. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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

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

Keep watching szcworkstracker.co.uk

This scan found 14 issues across 4 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
52
Security headers
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
Average
51

Not counted

  • Email security: did not complete in this scan.
  • DNS health: 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

Sizewell C Ltd holds a strong market position as the official source for construction progress tracking of the Sizewell C nuclear project. Its competitive advantage lies in providing timely, localized updates and alert subscriptions tailored to community needs. The business model is informational and engagement-focused, with revenue likely supported by the parent energy company or government funding. The target customers include local residents, regulatory bodies, and stakeholders interested in the project's impact. The company maintains partnerships with related Sizewell C domains and leverages social media channels for broader outreach. Growth indicators include regular content updates and integration of new alert features. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining transparency and trust through consistent communication and technical reliability.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, secure form handling, and no visible vulnerabilities or sensitive data exposure. The use of nonce tokens and honeypot fields in forms indicates proactive spam prevention. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response information, which could enhance user trust and preparedness for potential incidents. Compliance with GDPR is evident through privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture appears adequate but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan accessible to users to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Regularly audit and update all plugins and third-party libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance data protection practices by appointing and publishing Data Protection Officer contact details.
  5. Expand cookie consent mechanisms to include granular user preferences and detailed data retention disclosures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sizewell C Ltd
Description
Track the progress of construction works at Sizewell C and register to receive alert notifications for activities that might affect you.
Key services
Project progress tracking, Activity alerts subscription, Latest construction updates
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gravity Forms, Google Tag Manager, Google Maps API, jQuery, Select2, Moment.js, Slick Slider
Frameworks
Gravity Forms plugin, Yoast SEO plugin
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of nonce tokens in forms
  • Honeypot field in forms to prevent spam

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is an official project tracker for Sizewell C construction activities
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for forms and SEO
  3. Includes subscription forms for alerts with multi-select preferences
  4. Has clear contact information and social media presence
  5. No signs of blocking or WAF interference
  6. Good use of structured data and meta tags for SEO
  7. Cookie consent banner present and functional
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a widely used CMS platform (WordPress) with a modern tech stack including Gravity Forms, Google Tag Manager, and Google Maps API. The integration of structured data (JSON-LD) and SEO plugins indicates attention to search engine visibility. Performance is moderate, suggesting opportunities for optimization such as caching and asset minification. Mobile responsiveness and accessibility are well addressed, contributing to a positive user experience. Technical risks are minimal but include reliance on third-party scripts and the need for continuous plugin maintenance. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified, which could be relevant for infrastructure risk assessment.
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 szcworkstracker.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 szcworkstracker.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.