Skip to main content

Security report for teesdaleglazing.co.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.teesdaleglazing.co.uk currently presents a security verification page that requires users to pass a Google reCAPTCHA v3 challenge before accessing any content. This indicates the presence of a bot protection mechanism or a web application firewall (WAF) that restricts access to the site. Due to this, no meaningful business content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain WHOIS lookup failed with an error indicating the domain name is invalid per Nominet UK rules, suggesting potential misconfiguration or non-legitimate domain registration status. The site uses modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA but lacks visible SEO, accessibility, or privacy compliance features. Overall, the site is inaccessible for normal users without passing the security challenge, limiting the ability to assess its business or security posture comprehensively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching teesdaleglazing.co.uk

This scan found 27 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
57

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

No business intelligence data could be extracted due to the lack of accessible content and absence of WHOIS registration details. The domain appears invalid and no company name, contact details, or business descriptions are available. There are no social media links or partner domains identified. The site likely represents a small or inactive business presence with minimal digital footprint.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 as a bot mitigation measure, which is a positive security control. However, no other security headers or HTTPS enforcement details are visible in the provided data. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, contact information, and WHOIS data raises concerns about transparency and trustworthiness. The domain registration status is flagged as invalid by the registry, which is a significant red flag. Overall, the security posture is minimal and the site is effectively blocked behind a security challenge, limiting user access and analysis.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid domain registration compliant with Nominet UK rules to ensure legitimacy.
  2. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced site-wide with a valid SSL/TLS certificate.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  4. Publish clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and transparency.
  5. Enhance security headers and conduct a full security audit to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicating bot protection or WAF presence. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a Google reCAPTCHA v3 security verification challenge.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is accessible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found.
  4. No WHOIS data available due to domain registration error.
  5. Use of modern frontend framework Bootstrap and Google reCAPTCHA for security.
  6. No visible SEO or accessibility features detected.
  7. No external business-related links or social media profiles found.
  8. Website appears to be inaccessible for normal users without passing bot verification.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, indicating some level of modern frontend technology adoption. However, the site content is minimal and blocked behind a security verification form, preventing further technical analysis. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance, SEO, and accessibility cannot be assessed due to lack of content. The domain registration is invalid, which may indicate technical misconfiguration or an inactive domain.
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 teesdaleglazing.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 teesdaleglazing.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.