Skip to main content

Security report for theark.org.uk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at www.theark.org.uk appears to be hosted on the Wix platform but lacks a registered domain record in the Nominet UK WHOIS database, indicating the domain is either a subdomain or misconfigured. The site content is minimal and primarily technical, with no visible business or organizational information, contact details, or privacy policies. The technical infrastructure relies on Wix's standard scripts and polyfills, with no advanced frameworks or analytics detected. Security posture is weak due to lack of visible security headers, SSL configuration details, and absence of privacy or cookie policies. Overall, the site presents low business credibility and limited content quality, raising concerns about legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

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

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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 theark.org.uk

This scan found 25 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
69
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
65

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

Due to the absence of business-related content, contact information, or structured data, it is not possible to ascertain the market positioning, business model, or target customer segments of the entity behind the website. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates verification of the business identity. The site appears to be a small-scale or personal project hosted on Wix without clear commercial or organizational intent.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is low. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No incident response or security policy information is available. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content, but the lack of security best practices is a concern.

Recommendations

  1. Register and verify the domain properly with a recognized registrar to establish legitimacy.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and configure essential security headers.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information including company emails, phone numbers, and physical address.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any vulnerabilities and improve incident response readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, Intl.Segmenter Polyfill, Core-js, Focus-within-polyfill
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

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
low

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and polyfills.
  2. No WHOIS data available for the domain; domain appears unregistered or invalid per Nominet UK.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected in the HTML content.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the content.
  5. No social media links or security policies identified.
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML content.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond Wix standard scripts.
  8. Website content is minimal and mostly technical scripts and styles with no visible business or organizational information.
  9. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from the content.
  10. No evidence of WAF or content blocking; site content is accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Wix CMS and standard Wix JavaScript libraries and polyfills. The site lacks advanced frameworks or analytics integrations. Performance is moderate with standard Wix hosting. Mobile optimization is good due to Wix's responsive design features. Accessibility features are basic, with some ARIA and focus management scripts present. SEO optimization is minimal with no structured data or Open Graph metadata detected. The site would benefit from improved metadata, structured data, and performance tuning.
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 theark.org.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 theark.org.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.