Skip to main content

Security report for bipc.com

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC · Other · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC is a large, professional law firm with a nationwide presence specializing in a broad spectrum of business law cases across key sectors such as energy, finance, healthcare, and life sciences. The firm is recognized in industry rankings and offers comprehensive legal services to business clients. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and strong branding consistency. Technically, the site employs modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and accessibility tools from Monsido, ensuring good performance and accessibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and Content-Security-Policy headers, though additional security headers could enhance protection. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. However, the absence of WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration transparency, which should be further investigated to confirm legitimacy. Overall, the site is trustworthy, professional, and well-optimized for its audience.

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

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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 bipc.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
37
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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 holds a strong market position as a top-ranked legal service provider in multiple industries, leveraging a broad service portfolio and a large team of attorneys. Its business model focuses on delivering specialized legal expertise to corporate clients, supported by a robust online presence and active engagement on social media platforms. The firm’s commitment to diversity, corporate responsibility, and client service excellence are key competitive advantages. The website content and structure indicate a focus on client acquisition and retention through thought leadership and industry insights. The lack of explicit contact information on the site may be a deliberate choice to direct inquiries through controlled channels. The firm’s partnership ecosystem includes referral networks and affinity groups, enhancing its market reach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and a Content-Security-Policy header to upgrade insecure requests. The use of Google Tag Manager and Monsido scripts is managed appropriately, minimizing risk exposure. No sensitive data or credentials are exposed in the HTML content. However, the site could improve by implementing additional security headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts publicly available, which could be enhanced to improve transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from incremental improvements to align with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement additional HTTP security headers including Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen security.
  2. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Verify and publish domain WHOIS information or justify privacy protection to enhance trustworthiness.
  5. Continue to monitor and audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Description
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC has law offices throughout the country and hundreds of lawyers who specialize in a broad spectrum of business law cases.
Key services
Energy law, Finance law, Healthcare law, Life sciences law, Business law, Litigation, Intellectual property, Corporate law
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.7.1, Google Tag Manager, Monsido accessibility and analytics tools, FontAwesome 6.7.2, Slick carousel, Greensock animation, Hammer.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Content-Security-Policy header present
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for controlled script loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager), Monsido analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Monsido heatmaps and analytics
Marketing tools
Monsido Consent Manager
Transparency
basic

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 professional design.
  2. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  3. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which is unusual.
  4. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  5. Multiple social media profiles linked, indicating active online presence.
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  7. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and analytics tools.
  8. Good accessibility and SEO practices observed.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and well-maintained technology stack including jQuery 3.7.1, Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome 6.7.2, and accessibility tools from Monsido. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate with efficient use of scripts and stylesheets. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. The site does not appear to use a common CMS or hosting provider identifiable from the HTML content. There is no evidence of technical debt or deprecated technologies. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and implement a formal vulnerability disclosure mechanism.
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 bipc.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 bipc.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.