Skip to main content

Security report for courtfiling.net

CourtFiling · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CourtFiling.net is an established online platform providing electronic court filing services primarily targeting lawyers and legal professionals across multiple US states including California, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Texas. The website offers a streamlined, secure, and easy-to-use portal for filing court documents electronically, along with additional services such as document conversion, service of process, case summaries, and detailed reporting. The business positions itself as a trusted intermediary between legal professionals and court systems, emphasizing speed, security, and customer support. Technically, the website is built on WordPress CMS and leverages modern web technologies including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize for A/B testing, Wistia for video content, and Intercom for live chat support. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices and moderate performance. Security is enforced via HTTPS with no visible exposed sensitive data, though security headers are not explicitly detected in the provided data. From a security and compliance perspective, the site lacks visible privacy and cookie policies and does not provide explicit GDPR compliance indicators or security incident response contacts. The WHOIS data for the domain is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy and reduces trustworthiness. However, the professional presentation, customer testimonials, and active support channels mitigate some of these concerns. Overall, CourtFiling.net demonstrates a solid business and technical foundation with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security transparency. Verification of domain registration and addition of comprehensive privacy and security policies are recommended to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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. 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

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

Keep watching courtfiling.net

This scan found 23 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
63

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention courtfiling.net, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
245
Employees
0
Customers
245
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
3%

8 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for courtfiling.net.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

CourtFiling.net operates in the legal technology sector, providing essential eFiling services that streamline court document submissions for legal professionals. Its multi-state presence indicates a scalable business model targeting regional legal markets. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its ease of use, live support, and additional services like document conversion and electronic service of process. Revenue likely derives from service fees and subscriptions. The company maintains an active social media presence and partners with support resource sites, indicating a strategic approach to customer engagement and ecosystem building. Growth indicators include recent feature additions such as service of process for California attorneys. The absence of detailed corporate registration data suggests a need for further due diligence on corporate structure and ownership.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS, uses reputable third-party services for analytics and error tracking, and provides live support channels, indicating a mature security posture. However, the absence of explicit security headers and lack of published security policies or incident response contacts highlight gaps in transparency and defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The missing WHOIS data is a notable risk factor, potentially indicating domain registration issues. The site would benefit from implementing security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options, and publishing a security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit GDPR compliance statements and user consent mechanisms.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and user trust.
  4. Verify and update domain WHOIS registration information to ensure legitimacy and reduce suspicion.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to proactively identify and mitigate risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CourtFiling
Description
A fast and easy-to-use electronic court filing system for lawyers, legal professionals, and anyone else who needs to efile online.
Key services
Electronic court document filing, Document conversion to PDF, Service of process, Case summary views, Electronic service of process, Detailed reporting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize, Wistia video player, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Intercom chat widget, Sentry error tracking
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-focused third-party services (Sentry)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Optimize, Wistia
Marketing tools
Intercom
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Content is focused on electronic court filing services for multiple US states
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on homepage
  4. Contact information is present with phone number and live chat support
  5. Use of modern analytics and marketing tools observed
  6. WHOIS data missing, which reduces trust score
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. Website uses WordPress CMS with standard plugins and scripts
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern technology stack including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize, Wistia video player, jQuery, Slick Carousel, and Intercom live chat. The site is mobile optimized and uses responsive design techniques. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts and use of CDN-hosted libraries. SEO is well implemented with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Accessibility is basic but present. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. The site uses Sentry for error tracking, indicating proactive monitoring. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and functional 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 courtfiling.net. 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 courtfiling.net.

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.