Skip to main content

Security report for xebraaccounting.co.uk

Finance · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in DNS health, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website xebraaccounting.co.uk is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page that uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 to block automated access. This prevents viewing any actual business content, contact information, or policies. The domain is registered since 2013 with a reputable UK registrar, indicating a legitimate and established business presence. However, the lack of accessible content and policies limits the ability to assess the company's services, market position, or compliance posture. Technically, the site uses modern Bootstrap CSS and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection, but no other visible technologies or analytics are detected. Security-wise, the use of reCAPTCHA is a positive control, but the absence of visible security headers and policies is a concern. Overall, the site scores low on content quality and privacy compliance due to the blocking mechanism and missing 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 20 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  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

  3. 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

    • 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 xebraaccounting.co.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. 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
15
Email security
85
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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, detailed business intelligence is unavailable. The domain age and registrar suggest a stable UK-based finance-related business, likely small in size. No contact details, social media, or business descriptions are accessible to analyze market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships. The site appears to rely on bot protection to secure access, which may impact user experience and transparency.

Security posture

The security posture shows basic bot mitigation via Google reCAPTCHA v3, which is a modern and effective anti-bot measure. However, the lack of visible security headers, privacy policies, and contact information for incident response reduces overall security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are visible due to content blocking, but this also limits transparency. The site should improve by publishing clear security and privacy policies and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Remove or reduce the security verification barrier to allow legitimate users access to business content.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Add visible contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident communication.
  4. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Conduct a full security audit to identify and remediate any hidden vulnerabilities and improve overall security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3, indicating a WAF or security challenge. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by reCAPTCHA and domain HTTPS)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page.
  2. No business or contact information is visible on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 suggests bot mitigation but blocks content access.
  5. WHOIS data shows a long-registered domain with a reputable UK registrar.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond reCAPTCHA and Bootstrap CDN.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. Hosting is provided by 20i Ltd, a UK-based registrar and hosting provider. The HTML is minimal and focused solely on the security verification form, with no visible CMS or additional frameworks detected. Performance and accessibility cannot be assessed due to content blocking. The site lacks SEO metadata and structured data. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist to improve user experience and transparency by removing the blocking mechanism and adding rich content.
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 xebraaccounting.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 xebraaccounting.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.