Skip to main content

Security report for dglaw.com

Davis+Gilbert LLP · Other · United States

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Davis+Gilbert LLP is a full-service law firm based in New York City, serving a diverse client base nationally and internationally. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including advertising and marketing law, corporate transactions, intellectual property, labor and employment, litigation, privacy and data security, and real estate. Their market position is that of an established, medium-sized legal practice with a professional and consistent brand presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Genesis Framework, enhanced with SEO and search tools such as Yoast SEO and Algolia. The site is mobile optimized and performs moderately well, with good SEO and accessibility basics in place. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, though there is room for improvement in security headers and published security policies. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable concern, reducing trust from a domain registration perspective despite the professional appearance and content quality of the site. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from improved transparency in domain registration and enhanced security disclosures.

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

4 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 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 dglaw.com

This scan found 17 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
52
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
78

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 businesses and individuals requiring comprehensive legal services across multiple sectors, with a focus on advertising, marketing, corporate law, and privacy. Their business model is service-based, relying on legal expertise and client relationships. The website content and case studies demonstrate a strong client focus and industry knowledge, supporting their competitive positioning. The firm maintains an active social media presence and publishes industry reports, indicating engagement with market trends and thought leadership. No parent company or subsidiaries are identified. The lack of publicly available WHOIS data is unusual for a law firm and may warrant further investigation to confirm legitimacy and ownership.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and includes a cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of privacy and security best practices. However, no explicit security policy or incident response information is published, which is a gap in transparency. Security headers are not detected in the provided data, suggesting potential improvements in HTTP response configuration. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The use of third-party scripts such as Google Analytics and Algolia Search introduces moderate tracking but appears compliant with privacy norms. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced with published policies and improved HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen site security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS registration data to enhance domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to meet higher compliance standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure compliance with privacy regulations and minimize security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Davis+Gilbert LLP
Description
Based in New York City, Davis+Gilbert is a full-service law firm that represents a diverse range of clients across the country and around the world. The firm focuses on Advertising + Marketing, Benefits + Compensation, Corporate + Transactions, Insolvency + Finance, Intellectual Property + Media, Labor + Employment, Litigation + Dispute Resolution, Privacy + Data Security, Private Client Services, Public Relations, and Real Estate.
Key services
Advertising + Marketing, Benefits + Compensation, Corporate + Transactions, Insolvency + Finance, Intellectual Property + Media, Labor + Employment, Litigation + Dispute Resolution, Privacy + Data Security, Private Client Services, Public Relations
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Analytics, Algolia Search, jQuery, Google Fonts, Cloudflare (inferred from scripts)
Frameworks
Genesis Framework (WordPress)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Marketing tools
Algolia Search
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented with detailed legal service offerings.
  3. Strong SEO and structured data implementation.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented and GDPR compliance is indicated.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage HTML.
  6. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook is evident.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  8. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual for a law firm domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using the Genesis Framework, with SEO optimized by Yoast and enhanced search capabilities via Algolia. It uses standard web technologies including jQuery and Google Fonts. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. The site is mobile responsive and includes basic accessibility features. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from performance tuning and enhanced security configurations. No critical technical debt or vulnerabilities were detected in the HTML content.
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 dglaw.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 dglaw.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.