Green Filing LLC · Government · United States
Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.
Green Filing LLC operates the website efilinghelp.com, a specialized portal providing comprehensive electronic court filing (e-filing) support and guidance across multiple US states including California, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Texas, and others. The site targets legal professionals, self-represented litigants, and law firms, offering detailed instructions on initiating cases, filing on existing cases, managing payment accounts, and navigating state-specific court systems. The business positions itself as a niche service provider in the legal technology support sector, leveraging detailed content and state-specific resources to serve its audience effectively. Technically, the website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Analytics, and Intercom for customer engagement. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with structured data (JSON-LD) and meta tags, and it is hosted likely via GoDaddy.com, LLC. Performance and mobile optimization are assessed as moderate to good, with basic accessibility features implemented. However, some security best practices such as DNSSEC and security headers are missing, which could be improved. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and domain registration protections but lacks advanced security headers and explicit security policies. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response contacts are found, indicating room for improvement in security transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy accessible via an accessibility statement page but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional, with a clear business focus and consistent branding. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, and no suspicious patterns are detected. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing cookie consent mechanisms, and publishing explicit security and incident response policies to improve compliance and user trust.
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.
SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.
Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing
What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately
SPF helps prevent email spoofing
What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"
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.
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
Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, Google APIs
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 27 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 efilinghelp.com, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for efilinghelp.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 efilinghelp.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review efilinghelp.com.