Skip to main content

Security report for brickpatel.com

Brick & Patel LLP · Real Estate · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

59/100

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

Brick & Patel LLP is a small legal services firm specializing in trust and estate planning and administration, serving clients primarily in several US states including New York and Florida. The website provides basic information about the firm's services and geographic focus but lacks detailed contact information and modern web features. Technically, the site is built on an Apache server using older JavaScript libraries and Cloudfront CDN for some assets. However, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support despite security headers indicating HSTS, which undermines user trust and security. Privacy compliance is minimal with no cookie consent mechanism and only a basic privacy policy present. Business credibility is supported by a mature domain and consistent WHOIS data, but the overall digital maturity is low. Security posture is weak due to missing SSL and outdated libraries, posing risks to visitors and the firm's reputation. Strategic improvements should focus on securing the site with valid SSL, updating technology stack, and enhancing privacy and security policies to meet modern standards.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching brickpatel.com

This scan found 5 issues across 4 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
0
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
59

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Brick & Patel LLP operates in the legal services sector with a niche focus on estate and trust law. The firm targets individuals, families, fiduciaries, and financial institutions in a regional market. The business model is service-based, relying on professional expertise rather than product sales. The website's minimalistic content and lack of extensive digital marketing tools suggest a traditional approach to client acquisition. The firm benefits from a mature domain and strong domain protection, indicating stability and legitimacy. However, the absence of social media presence and modern engagement tools limits growth potential and market reach. There are no detected partnerships or subsidiaries linked via the website. The firm could benefit from digital transformation to improve client engagement and competitive positioning.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, despite the presence of several security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, and Content-Type Options. The use of outdated JavaScript libraries like jQuery 1.8.3 introduces potential vulnerabilities. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies are evident, and no security certifications are displayed. The lack of cookie consent and GDPR compliance indicators further weakens privacy protections. While the domain registration is secure and mature, the technical security implementation on the website is insufficient to protect user data or instill trust. Immediate remediation is needed to enable HTTPS, update libraries, and implement privacy and security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Update JavaScript libraries and dependencies to current secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  3. Implement a cookie consent banner and enhance privacy policy to align with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information to improve security transparency.
  5. Improve website design and mobile responsiveness to enhance user experience and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an Apache server with assets served partially via Cloudfront CDN. It uses older versions of jQuery and jQuery UI libraries, which are known to have security issues if not updated. The site lacks a modern CMS or framework and uses static XHTML 1.0 Strict markup with ISO-8859-1 charset, which is outdated. Performance metrics are missing but inferred to be slow due to lack of optimization and modern techniques. Mobile optimization is poor, and accessibility features are minimal. SEO is basic with limited meta tags and no structured data or Open Graph tags detected. The site uses Google reCAPTCHA for form protection but lacks analytics or tracking tools. Overall, the technical infrastructure is outdated and requires modernization to improve security, performance, and user experience.
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 brickpatel.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 brickpatel.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.