Skip to main content

Security report for uform.co.uk

Uform · Retail · United Kingdom

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

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Uform is a UK and Ireland based supplier specializing in kitchen and bedroom doors and components, targeting trade professionals. The website presents a professional and market-leading image with a clear focus on B2B supply of kitchen and bedroom doors. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with WooCommerce and integrates modern marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Algolia search. The site is mobile optimized and SEO friendly, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacking visible security headers and explicit form protections. Privacy and cookie policies are not evident in the provided content, indicating compliance gaps. The WHOIS data reveals a critical issue: the domain www.uform.co.uk is reported by Nominet as invalid due to naming rules, raising concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, the website is functional and professional but requires improvements in compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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. 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. 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

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

Keep watching uform.co.uk

This scan found 21 issues across 5 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
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

Uform operates as a medium-sized retail sector business supplying kitchen and bedroom doors to trade customers across the UK and Ireland. Their market position is described as market leading, supported by a professional online presence. The business model is B2B supply with key services including doors and components. The website leverages multiple marketing and analytics platforms indicating a mature digital marketing approach. However, the lack of visible contact information and compliance documentation may impact customer trust and regulatory adherence. No parent or subsidiary relationships are evident. The company targets trade professionals and likely generates revenue through direct sales and component supply.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS ensuring encrypted communications, which is a fundamental security measure. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces defense-in-depth. The presence of multiple third-party scripts increases the attack surface and requires regular auditing. No explicit incident response or security policy information is found, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. The WHOIS domain registration failure is a significant red flag for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but needs enhancements in policy transparency, header implementation, and domain legitimacy verification.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance security posture.
  3. Audit and minimize third-party scripts to reduce potential vulnerabilities and improve performance.
  4. Verify and correct domain registration issues with Nominet to ensure domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Establish and publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to improve security transparency and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Uform
Description
Uform are a market leading kitchen and bedroom door and component supplier trading throughout the UK and Ireland.
Key services
kitchen doors, bedroom doors, components supply
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, WooCommerce, Yoast SEO, HubSpot scripts, Google Tag Manager, Algolia search, Facebook Pixel, FontAwesome
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Analytics
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Algolia Search
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and professional
  2. No WHOIS registration data available due to domain registration error
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in provided content
  4. Multiple third-party marketing and analytics scripts present
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in provided HTML snippet
  6. No security headers detected in provided data
  7. HTTPS is enabled and appears properly configured
  8. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  9. Content is safe and business-focused
  10. Domain WHOIS data indicates domain registration failure
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with WooCommerce, enhanced by Yoast SEO for search optimization. It uses HubSpot for marketing automation and analytics, Google Tag Manager for tag management, Facebook Pixel for retargeting, and Algolia for search functionality. FontAwesome provides iconography. The site is mobile optimized and uses modern JavaScript modules. Performance is moderate with lazy loading for videos and optimized CSS. However, no hosting provider information is evident. Accessibility is basic with some ARIA and semantic HTML but could be improved. SEO is good with proper meta tags and structured data. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts and lack of security headers. The domain registration failure is a critical technical concern affecting trust and DNS stability.
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 uform.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 uform.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.