Skip to main content

Security report for essentialaccessibility.com

Level Access · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Level Access is a leading provider of digital accessibility solutions, offering a comprehensive platform combined with expert managed services to help organizations achieve and maintain compliance with accessibility standards such as WCAG and ADA. The company targets enterprises and organizations requiring robust accessibility compliance, positioning itself as a market leader with a strong portfolio of major clients. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern optimization and tracking tools, delivering excellent performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement and consent management, though explicit security policies and incident response details are not publicly disclosed. Overall, the website and business present a professional and trustworthy front, though the absence of WHOIS data is a notable gap. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around security policies and incident response, and confirming security header implementations.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of essentialaccessibility.com. View the latest report

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

6 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 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

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

Keep watching essentialaccessibility.com

This scan found 22 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
15
Email security
83
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
68

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

Level Access operates in the technology sector with a focus on digital accessibility, serving large enterprises and public sector organizations. Their business model combines SaaS platform offerings with managed services including audits, legal guidance, and training. The company demonstrates strong market positioning with recognizable clients and certifications. Their partnership ecosystem includes related domains such as essentialaccessibility.com for platform access. Growth indicators include active content marketing, resource libraries, and multiple engagement forms. The company leverages modern marketing and analytics tools to optimize user engagement and lead generation.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and employs consent management via Cookiebot, indicating compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. Security headers are implied but not explicitly confirmed in the HTML. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. However, the absence of a published security policy or incident response contact channels limits transparency. The company should consider publishing detailed security and vulnerability disclosure policies to enhance trust and readiness. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with clearer communication and explicit header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan accessible from the website.
  2. Confirm and explicitly implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  4. Enhance contact information with direct security and privacy contacts.
  5. Maintain and regularly update privacy and cookie policies to reflect evolving regulations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Level Access
Description
Level Access’ digital accessibility platform combines technology and expert services to help organizations meet accessibility goals.
Key services
Digital accessibility platform, Automated scans, Manual testing, Legal guidance, Training and certification, Accessibility audits, VPATs and compliance support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.7.2, NitroPack optimization, HubSpot forms, Google Tag Manager, Qualified analytics, Cookiebot consent management
Frameworks
Bootstrap (CSS variables and classes detected)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Consent management for cookies
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-focused scripts and libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Qualified, Visual Website Optimizer
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Tag Manager, Visual Website Optimizer
Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (implied), Qualified
Marketing tools
HubSpot forms, Cookiebot
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 and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms
  2. Professional and comprehensive digital accessibility service provider
  3. Strong branding with major enterprise clients
  4. Multiple modal forms for demo requests and product validation
  5. Use of modern web technologies and optimization tools
  6. Good privacy and cookie consent implementation
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers visible in HTML; contact via forms
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, which is unusual but not necessarily suspicious
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS version 6.7.2 with NitroPack for performance optimization, HubSpot for form management, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The tech stack is modern and well-integrated, supporting fast load times and mobile optimization. Accessibility is a core focus, reflected in design and content. The site uses multiple external domains for CDN, analytics, and consent management, all reputable. There is no indication of outdated or vulnerable libraries. Technical debt appears low, and the site is well-maintained with good SEO and structured data implementation.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 74/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with essentialaccessibility.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 essentialaccessibility.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.