Skip to main content

Security report for theoldshipaground.com

The Old Ship Aground · Hospitality · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Old Ship Aground is a small hospitality business operating as a local iconic harbourside pub and accommodation provider in Minehead, United Kingdom. The website offers traditional locally sourced food, table reservations, and accommodation booking services. The business appears well positioned in its local market with a consistent brand presence and active social media channels. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and SEO-optimized infrastructure. Mobile optimization and user experience are good, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacking DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for improved protection. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but could improve in privacy and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 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
    • 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';…

  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

    • 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 theoldshipaground.com

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
47
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
63

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 targets general consumers seeking hospitality services in Minehead, focusing on food and accommodation. Its business model is direct service provision with online reservation capabilities. The company leverages social media for marketing and customer engagement. The domain age and WHOIS data align with the business history, supporting legitimacy. No evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries was found. The website content is relevant and professionally maintained, supporting a positive market presence.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, which is mandatory for secure communications. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers were detected in the provided data, representing potential security gaps. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is available, which limits transparency for security issues. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No tracking or advertising scripts were detected, reducing privacy risks from third-party services. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements to meet best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve incident response readiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to minimize vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
The Old Ship Aground
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Old Ship Aground
Description
Traditional locally sourced food, reserve A table or book accommodation at The Old Ship Aground, Quay St, Minehead, TA24 5UL.
Key services
Food service, Table reservation, Accommodation booking
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Yoast SEO, Google Fonts
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a hospitality business site for a local pub and accommodation in Minehead, UK.
  2. Content is professionally presented with good SEO metadata and structured data.
  3. No privacy or cookie policies found on the homepage HTML content.
  4. No visible contact emails or phone numbers explicitly labeled on the homepage HTML content.
  5. Social media presence is linked via Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram, and YouTube.
  6. Uses WordPress CMS with Divi theme and Yoast SEO plugin.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  8. No security headers detected in provided data; DNSSEC not enabled.
  9. No advertising or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a widely used CMS (WordPress) with a popular theme (Divi) and SEO plugin (Yoast), indicating a mature and maintainable technical stack. The use of Google Fonts and external CSS/JS is standard. Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading but could benefit from optimization. Mobile responsiveness is good, supported by CSS media queries and mobile menu styles. Accessibility is basic, with no advanced ARIA or semantic enhancements detected. SEO is well supported by meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Hosting provider details are not explicit, limiting infrastructure analysis. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could improve in security and privacy features.
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 theoldshipaground.com. 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 theoldshipaground.com.

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.