Skip to main content

Security report for generalcode.com

General Code · Government · N/a

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

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

General Code is a company specializing in municipal code solutions that enable integration of ordinances, zoning codes, and building codes with various systems. The website positions the company as a forward-thinking provider targeting municipalities and government entities. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS with modern SEO and analytics tools such as Yoast SEO, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager. The website is well-optimized for mobile and has good design and navigation quality. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies. WHOIS data is missing, which raises concerns about domain registration transparency. Overall, the website is professional and functional but would benefit from improved privacy disclosures and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 generalcode.com

This scan found 23 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
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention generalcode.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for generalcode.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

General Code operates in the government sector providing software and services for municipal code management. Its business model is B2B, serving municipalities and government agencies. The company appears established with a medium-sized presence, focusing on integration and management of municipal codes. The website content and branding are consistent and professional, though no explicit business registration or contact details are published. The lack of WHOIS data and registrant information is a notable gap. The company leverages partnerships with technology providers for analytics and SEO but does not publicly disclose partnerships or certifications. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not evident from the website content.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS with a valid SSL configuration, which is a fundamental security measure. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are published, limiting transparency and readiness for security incidents. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adopting best practices and publishing relevant policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to enhance trust and legitimacy.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain a strong security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
General Code
Description
General Code’s municipal code solutions make it possible to link ordinances, zoning codes, and building codes with your own array of systems.
Key services
municipal code solutions, linking ordinances, zoning codes, building codes integration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome, Kadence Blocks, GeneratePress theme
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security and analytics scripts asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or not publicly available, which reduces trust.
  3. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with SEO and analytics tools.
  4. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content.
  6. No security policy or incident response information published.
  7. Content is focused on municipal code solutions for government clients.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected.
  9. Website performance and mobile optimization are good.
  10. Security headers are not explicitly detected; SSL is properly configured.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the GeneratePress theme and Kadence Blocks plugin, indicating a modern and flexible CMS infrastructure. SEO is managed via Yoast SEO plugin, and analytics are implemented using Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity, integrated through Google Tag Manager. The site loads scripts asynchronously, which is good for performance. Fonts are loaded from Google Fonts and FontAwesome is used for icons. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and basic accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of security headers and privacy policies indicates areas for technical improvement. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content.
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 generalcode.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 generalcode.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.