Skip to main content

Security report for firstamendment.com

Walters Law Group · Other · 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

Walters Law Group is a specialized legal firm focusing on First Amendment and internet law, serving clients worldwide with decades of experience. Their market position is strong within their niche, offering a broad range of legal services including intellectual property, gaming law, and commercial transactions. The firm targets clients needing expert legal counsel in complex constitutional and internet-related legal matters. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins and Google services, showing moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and clientTransferProhibited domain status, but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could improve compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching firstamendment.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
65
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
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

The firm operates a niche legal practice with a clear business model centered on specialized legal services. Their competitive advantage lies in their expertise and longstanding domain presence since 1997. The website supports lead generation through contact forms and social media engagement. The firm maintains a consistent brand and leverages testimonials and structured data to build trust. Their marketing ecosystem includes Google Ads and analytics, indicating active client acquisition efforts. Growth indicators include a comprehensive service portfolio and active social media channels. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the data.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses invisible Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms, indicating good baseline security practices. However, the absence of DNSSEC and lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represent gaps that could be exploited. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy is present, limiting incident response transparency. Privacy policies are missing, which is a compliance risk under GDPR and similar regulations. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but would benefit from enhanced DNS security, header implementation, and formalized privacy and incident response documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies that address GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Implement and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Add a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contact information.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Walters Law Group
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Walters Law Group
Description
Our top-rated law firm represents clients worldwide on cutting-edge legal issues. We are dedicated to protecting constitutional rights and defending free expression. With decades of experience, the first amendment lawyers at Walters Law Group have the knowledge and resources to handle complex legal matters. Our attorneys focus on internet law, intellectual property, gaming, and First Amendment law. The professionals at Walters Law Group are committed to aggressively servicing the unique needs of each client.
Key services
First Amendment Law, Domain Name Disputes, Adult Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, Sports Betting Law, Internet Law, Advertising Law, Copyright / Trademark, Commercial Transactions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Google reCAPTCHA (Invisible), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Yoast SEO, Slider Revolution, WPBakery Page Builder, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Invisible Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No DNSSEC (not enabled)

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
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 site specializing in First Amendment and internet law
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap
  3. Uses modern WordPress plugins and Google services for analytics and ads
  4. Contact information is clearly presented with phone and physical address
  5. No visible security.txt or incident response info
  6. No DNSSEC enabled on domain
  7. Good use of invisible reCAPTCHA on forms to prevent spam
  8. Social media presence is strong with multiple verified platforms linked
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress platform using popular plugins such as Yoast SEO, Slider Revolution, and WPBakery Page Builder. It integrates Google services for analytics and advertising, indicating a modern marketing approach. The site is mobile responsive and uses invisible reCAPTCHA for spam prevention. Hosting details are partially obscured but DNS is managed via Cloudflare. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. The technical stack is stable but could be improved with enhanced security configurations and accessibility compliance.
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 firstamendment.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 firstamendment.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.