Skip to main content

Security report for wj.uk

Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at wj.uk currently serves a security verification page that employs Google reCAPTCHA invisible challenge to prevent automated access. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar bot protection mechanism, which blocks direct content access and limits the ability to analyze the full website content. The domain is registered with Total Web Solutions Ltd in the UK since 2014, showing a mature registration history and consistent WHOIS data. However, the website itself lacks visible business information, privacy policies, or contact details, which reduces trust and transparency. Technically, the site uses modern Bootstrap CSS and Google reCAPTCHA for security but lacks visible security headers or advanced configurations. Overall, the site is functional for bot protection but provides minimal user-facing content or business information.

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

7 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 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

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

Keep watching wj.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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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 security verification page blocking content, no direct business information, services, or market positioning can be determined from the website. The domain age and registrar suggest a legitimate UK-based entity, but no company name, description, or contact details are present. There are no visible partnerships, subsidiaries, or certifications. The business model and target audience cannot be inferred from the available data.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture by implementing Google reCAPTCHA invisible challenge to mitigate automated bot access. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are detected, and SSL/TLS configuration details are unavailable. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and contact information for incident response indicates gaps in compliance and transparency. The security score is moderate but limited by the lack of visible security best practices beyond bot protection.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration and verify via headers.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies visible to users to improve compliance.
  3. Publish clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  4. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Improve website content accessibility beyond the security verification page to enable full analysis and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA invisible token and spinner, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • Form uses POST method with invisible reCAPTCHA token

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA invisible challenge.
  2. No business or contact information is visible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  5. WHOIS data is complete and consistent with UK domain registration.
  6. Site uses modern Bootstrap CSS and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection.
  7. No analytics or marketing tools detected beyond reCAPTCHA.
  8. No social media or external business links found.
  9. Content is minimal and purely functional for security verification.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, indicating a modern but minimal tech stack. The hosting provider is Total Web Solutions Ltd, a UK-based registrar and hosting company. The page is mobile responsive and uses asynchronous loading for scripts. However, no CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta descriptions and structured data. Accessibility is basic with minimal ARIA or semantic markup. The site is primarily a security gate rather than a full website.
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 wj.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 wj.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.