Skip to main content

Security report for aalrr.com

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo · Other · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo is a well-established California-based law firm with over 40 years of experience and a large team of over 200 attorneys across nine offices. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including labor and employment law, corporate finance, education law, litigation, and public safety, targeting both public and private sector clients. Their market position is strong within California, supported by awards, client testimonials, and recognized diversity initiatives. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as jwplayer for media, Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, and HubSpot for marketing and analytics. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and accessible, with good SEO practices and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism. However, no CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly identified. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and provides cookie consent management, but lacks explicit security headers and a published security policy or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The absence of WHOIS domain registration data is a notable concern, potentially indicating privacy protection or a registration anomaly, which slightly impacts trustworthiness. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations, but would benefit from enhanced transparency in domain registration and explicit security policies to improve its security posture and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

3 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 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

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

Keep watching aalrr.com

This scan found 22 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
62
Security headers
40
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
74

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 firm operates in the legal sector, focusing on a wide array of practice areas and industries, serving a diverse client base in California. Their business model is service-oriented, leveraging expertise in multiple legal domains. The firm demonstrates competitive advantages through its size, geographic coverage, and recognized diversity efforts. Revenue streams likely derive from legal services, training, and consulting. The presence of multiple offices and a large attorney base indicates a mature and established operation. Partnerships with social media platforms and marketing tools like HubSpot support client engagement and brand presence. The firm’s strategic focus on diversity and community involvement enhances its market reputation and client trust.

Security posture

The website shows a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of a published security or incident response policy represent gaps. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found, indicating good operational security hygiene. The missing WHOIS data raises concerns about domain registration transparency, which is critical for trust in a professional legal firm. Compliance with GDPR is indicated by privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not explicitly visible, suggesting room for improvement in security communication and preparedness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Clarify domain registration details or ensure WHOIS data is publicly available to enhance trust and legitimacy.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
Description
With over 40 years of uncompromising commitment to high quality legal work, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo is one of California’s leading law firms.
Key services
Legal counsel, Litigation, Labor & Employment Law, Corporate Finance & Transactions, Education Law, Public Safety, Tax Law, Water Law, Diversity & Inclusion consulting
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jwplayer, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, JavaScript, CSS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with management options
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
HubSpot Analytics
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. No WAF or security blocking detected
  3. Professional legal services firm with multiple offices in California
  4. Comprehensive cookie and privacy policies with consent mechanisms
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response information found
  6. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual for a professional firm
  7. Use of multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics and HubSpot
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected
  9. Good mobile and accessibility optimization
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including jwplayer for media playback, Google Analytics and Tag Manager for user tracking, and HubSpot for marketing automation. The site is well-structured with valid HTML and CSS, and includes responsive design for mobile optimization. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement in loading speed. Accessibility features are present, supporting a broad user base. No CMS or hosting provider was explicitly identified, which may indicate a custom or proprietary platform. The site includes comprehensive metadata and structured data for SEO. Technical risks are minimal but could be reduced further by implementing security headers and optimizing third-party dependencies.
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 aalrr.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 aalrr.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.