Skip to main content

Security report for wgcarter.co.uk

WG Carter · Real Estate · United Kingdom

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Network security and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

WG Carter is a well-established construction company specializing in the refurbishment, renovation, and construction of high-quality residential homes primarily in Oxfordshire, the Cotswolds, and surrounding counties. The company emphasizes bespoke town and country houses, historic property restoration, and architect-designed new builds. Their market position is that of a trusted regional specialist with over 70 years of experience, supported by certifications such as CIOB and a professional online presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Bootstrap and includes modern tracking and security tools like Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA. However, some security best practices such as security headers and cookie consent mechanisms are missing. The WHOIS data query failed due to querying the 'www' subdomain, which is a common error and does not necessarily indicate suspicious activity. Overall, the website is professional, secure, and credible with minor areas for improvement in privacy compliance and security hardening.

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

7 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. 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

  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 wgcarter.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
20
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
48

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

WG Carter operates in the real estate and construction sector, targeting homeowners, architects, and developers seeking high-quality residential construction and renovation services. Their business model is service-based, focusing on bespoke and luxury home projects. The company leverages a loyal skilled workforce and emphasizes project management excellence. The website supports marketing efforts with testimonials, case studies, and a brochure. Their digital ecosystem includes Google Ads and Analytics for marketing and performance tracking. The company maintains a LinkedIn presence but lacks visible email contacts on the site. The absence of WHOIS data for the queried domain slightly impacts trust but is explainable. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 to protect forms, indicating a good baseline security posture. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the overall security hardening. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a published security or incident response policy and no vulnerability disclosure mechanism are gaps in security governance. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional headers, policies, and compliance features.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance and user privacy transparency.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response plan on the website to demonstrate security governance and readiness.
  4. Create a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Verify and correct WHOIS queries by using the base domain (wgcarter.co.uk) instead of the 'www' subdomain to obtain accurate domain registration data.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
WG Carter
Description
WG Carter specialises in the refurbishment, renovation, and construction of high-quality homes across Oxfordshire, the Cotswolds, and surrounding counties.
Key services
Refurbishment, Renovation, Construction, Country Homes, Town Houses, Outdoor Living, New Build, Colleges & Schools
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Bootstrap 4, jQuery, FontAwesome, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Marketing tools
Google Ads
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Professional construction company website with clear service offerings
  3. Uses WordPress CMS with modern frontend technologies
  4. Includes Google Analytics and Google Ads tracking
  5. No visible security headers detected in HTML source
  6. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy found
  7. Contact phone number clearly displayed with call-to-action
  8. Privacy policy page exists but no GDPR cookie consent mechanism
  9. No visible email addresses in HTML content
  10. Social media presence includes LinkedIn link
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap 4 for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It uses FontAwesome for icons and integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. Google reCAPTCHA v3 is implemented for spam protection on forms. The site loads external CSS and JS from reputable CDNs and uses a custom theme with optimized images and meta tags for SEO. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in accessibility features. The site is mobile-optimized and has clear navigation. No hosting provider information was detected from the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained with opportunities to enhance 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 wgcarter.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 wgcarter.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.