Court File America · Government · United States
High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.
Court File America is a small, specialized service provider acting as a certified Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP) for the State of Texas since 2006. The company facilitates electronic court filings for law firms and attorneys, offering both free self-administered efiling and credit account-based transaction fee services. Their market position is that of a trusted intermediary with direct integration to Texas' Electronic Filing Manager (EFM), competing alongside the state's free EFSP and other for-profit providers. The website content is focused on legal professionals in Texas, providing registration, training, and support resources. Technically, the website is built on legacy HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with no modern frameworks detected. Hosting is provided by HostGator, and the site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, indicating a weak security posture. The site does not implement privacy or cookie policies, which is a compliance gap. No analytics or tracking technologies are detected, suggesting minimal user tracking. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS and security headers, combined with outdated code, presents vulnerabilities and risks. The WHOIS data is consistent and transparent, with a domain age matching the business history, supporting legitimacy. However, the lack of documented security policies and incident response contacts limits the security maturity. Overall, the site is functional but requires modernization and improved security and compliance measures. The overall risk is moderate due to the lack of HTTPS and compliance policies, but the business credibility and clear contact information mitigate some concerns. Strategic improvements in security, privacy compliance, and technical modernization are recommended to enhance trust and operational resilience.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
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
This scan found 24 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention courtfileamerica.com, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for courtfileamerica.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with courtfileamerica.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review courtfileamerica.com.