Skip to main content

Security report for cph.com

Womble Bond Dickinson · Other · United Kingdom

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Womble Bond Dickinson is a large international law firm operating primarily in the UK and US markets, offering a broad range of legal services across multiple sectors including energy, healthcare, finance, and technology. The website is professionally designed using Drupal 10 CMS and integrates modern front-end libraries and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. Privacy and cookie policies are well implemented with clear consent mechanisms, indicating good compliance with GDPR and related regulations. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enforced but lacking explicit security headers and published incident response policies. The WHOIS data is missing or indicates the domain may not be registered under the queried name, which is unusual for a firm of this stature and warrants further verification. Overall, the website presents a trustworthy and professional digital presence with room for improvement in security transparency and domain registration clarity.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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
    • 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 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 cph.com

This scan found 20 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
57
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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 targets corporate clients and professionals requiring legal expertise in diverse sectors such as financial institutions, healthcare, real estate, and technology. Their business model is based on providing comprehensive legal services internationally, supported by a strong digital presence with detailed sector and service information. The website references partner domains related to specialized services, indicating a partnership ecosystem. The firm appears well-positioned in the market with a focus on client engagement through insights, events, and expert search functionality. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers in the analyzed content suggests contact is managed via forms or other channels, aligning with professional service norms.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent banners, reflecting awareness of privacy and security best practices. However, no explicit security headers (such as CSP, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options) were detected in the HTML content, which could improve protection against common web attacks. There is no visible security policy or incident response information, nor a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file. The use of third-party scripts like Google Tag Manager and external font services is standard but requires ongoing monitoring for vulnerabilities. The missing WHOIS data raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy, which is a critical trust factor for a law firm. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be enhanced with more transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Add and verify security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Womble Bond Dickinson
Description
Womble Bond Dickinson is an international law firm with offices in the US and UK, including London and Silicon Valley, serving clients across every business sector.
Key services
Banking, Restructuring and Financial Services, Commercial, Corporate, Digital, IT and Privacy, Employment & Pensions, Insurance and Claims, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Risk and Disputes, Private Wealth, Property and Construction
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, lazysizes (lazy loading images), Select2 (enhanced select boxes), Swiper (carousel), Photoswipe (image gallery), Civic Cookie Control
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by canonical link https)
  • Cookie consent banner with opt-in/out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

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 blocking detected
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy mechanisms implemented
  4. No direct company emails or phone numbers found in provided HTML snippet
  5. Multiple external trusted domains used for fonts, scripts, and analytics
  6. Drupal CMS with modern front-end libraries
  7. No explicit security headers detected in HTML content
  8. WHOIS data missing or domain unregistered in queried WHOIS database
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10 CMS, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as lazysizes for lazy loading images, Select2 for enhanced form selects, Swiper for carousels, and Photoswipe for image galleries. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tracking. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is moderate, with some reliance on external CDNs for fonts and scripts. The technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained but lacks visible advanced security headers and explicit hosting provider information. Opportunities exist to improve performance optimization and security hardening.
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 cph.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 cph.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.