Skip to main content

Security report for fisherarnold.com

Fisher Arnold · Government · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Fisher Arnold is a large, well-established civil engineering, architecture, and civil planning firm headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, serving primarily the Southeastern United States. The company positions itself as the largest firm of its kind in the region, offering a broad range of professional services including engineering, architecture, planning, and consulting to government, commercial, industrial, and institutional clients. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with a clear focus on showcasing their portfolio and services. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and leverages a modern technology stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and other marketing and analytics tools. The site is mobile optimized and demonstrates good SEO practices with structured data and meta tags. Performance is moderate, and accessibility is basic but functional. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with an excellent SSL configuration but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies, which are important for compliance and user trust. No forms were detected on the homepage, though Ninja Forms scripts are present, indicating potential form usage elsewhere. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable anomaly that slightly reduces trust, although the professional presentation and content quality support legitimacy. Overall, the website is a credible and professional digital presence for Fisher Arnold, but improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and transparency around domain registration would enhance trust and security posture.

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

9 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching fisherarnold.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
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
64

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

Fisher Arnold holds a strong market position as the largest civil engineering and architecture firm in the Southeastern US, targeting government and commercial sectors among others. Their business model focuses on delivering specialized professional services with a client-centric approach. The company leverages a portfolio-driven marketing strategy and maintains active social media channels to engage with clients and stakeholders. The absence of detailed financial or founding data limits deeper revenue or growth analysis, but the firm's size and scope indicate a large enterprise operation. Partnerships with digital agencies like LAB Digital Creative suggest investment in digital marketing and brand development.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others is a gap that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. The absence of a published privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism raises compliance concerns, particularly with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which limits transparency and readiness perception. The use of multiple third-party tracking scripts without explicit user consent further impacts privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is adequate but could be significantly improved with targeted enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  2. Add and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to strengthen web security.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information, including a security.txt file, to enhance transparency and readiness.
  4. Investigate and resolve the absence of WHOIS data to improve domain registration trust and legitimacy.
  5. Regularly audit and monitor third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and ensure compliance with privacy standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
FISHER AND ARNOLD, INC
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fisher Arnold
Description
The largest civil engineering, architecture and civil planning firm in the Southeast, Fisher Arnold is headquartered in Memphis, TN.
Key services
Engineering, Architecture, Planning, Consulting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, StackAdapt, Ninja Forms, Autoptimize, Slick Slider, LazySizes
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and analytics scripts asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
StackAdapt
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, StackAdapt
Marketing tools
Clearbit
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found or linked in main navigation or footer.
  3. Contact information is limited to phone and physical address; no email addresses found.
  4. Use of multiple third-party marketing and analytics scripts without visible cookie consent.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual and reduces domain trust.
  6. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and modern frontend libraries.
  7. Good SEO and structured data implementation.
  8. No visible security headers detected in HTML source.
  9. No forms detected on the homepage; Ninja Forms plugin scripts present but no form markup found in provided HTML.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern frontend leveraging jQuery and various plugins for SEO, forms, and sliders. It uses asynchronous loading for analytics and marketing scripts to optimize performance. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and SEO optimization through Yoast plugin and structured data. However, the site lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy/cookie compliance mechanisms. Performance is moderate, with opportunities to improve load times and accessibility features. The technical infrastructure is solid but would benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance improvements.
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 fisherarnold.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 fisherarnold.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.