Skip to main content

Security report for downeymcelroy.com

Downey | McElroy · Other · United States

High risk. 12 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Downey | McElroy is a small, established legal services firm specializing in probate, trust, fiduciary litigation, estate planning, and mediation. The firm emphasizes advocacy for clients and community stewardship, with roots dating back to the 1940s. Their website reflects a professional presence targeting individuals and entities requiring specialized legal services in estate and trust matters. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common SEO and analytics tools, showing moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms such as privacy and cookie policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and registration consistency, which impacts overall trustworthiness. No adult or questionable content is present, and no WAF or blocking mechanisms interfere with content access.

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

12 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching downeymcelroy.com

This scan found 31 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
55
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
Average
40

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 · found on this site
  • 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 operates in the legal services sector, focusing on niche areas like probate and fiduciary litigation. Its market position is that of a regional, small-sized law firm with a long-standing history. The business model is service-based, relying on client advocacy and legal expertise. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing client accessibility. The website's use of SEO and analytics tools suggests an intent to maintain digital visibility. However, the lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates a gap in compliance with modern data protection standards. The domain registration inconsistency could be a risk factor for client trust and brand reputation. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, and uses reputable third-party services like Google Analytics and Tag Manager. However, it lacks critical security headers that could mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No forms or input fields are present on the homepage, reducing immediate risk of injection attacks, but the absence of a privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism indicates non-compliance with GDPR and similar regulations. No incident response or security contact information is provided, limiting transparency in case of security events. The WHOIS data absence is a notable concern, potentially indicating privacy protection or domain registration issues. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with better compliance and security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a security.txt file and provide incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Verify and update domain registration details to ensure consistency and improve trustworthiness.
  5. Conduct regular security audits of third-party plugins and scripts to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Downey | McElroy
Description
Probate and Trust Litigation. Fiduciary Litigation. Wills, Trusts, Estates and Guardianships. Downey | McElroy’s roots date back to the 1940s. The firm advocates for clients, cooperates with fellow attorneys, and serves the community.
Key services
Probate, Trust & Guardianship Litigation, Fiduciary Litigation, Estate & Trust Administration, Estate & Trust Planning, Mediation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Typekit Fonts
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional legal services firm site with clear contact info and service descriptions.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. No visible forms on homepage; no data collection forms detected.
  4. No security.txt or incident response info present.
  5. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy protection.
  6. Uses standard WordPress CMS with common SEO and analytics plugins.
  7. No adult or questionable content detected.
  8. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS version 6.8.2, utilizing the Yoast SEO plugin for search engine optimization and Google Analytics and Tag Manager for traffic analysis. Fonts are served via Adobe Typekit. The site uses responsive design techniques and includes meta tags for SEO and social media sharing (Open Graph and Twitter cards). Performance is moderate with no evident blocking or WAF interference. Accessibility features are basic but present. The site lacks advanced security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms. No forms or user input fields are detected on the homepage, reducing attack surface. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is standard for a small professional services website but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security controls.
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 downeymcelroy.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 downeymcelroy.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.