Skip to main content

Security report for harie.org

HARIE · Government · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

HARIE (Housing and Redevelopment Insurance Exchange) is a specialized non-profit insurance provider serving governmental entities such as housing and redevelopment authorities, municipal entities, and other government bodies within Pennsylvania. The organization operates as a fully regulated reciprocal insurance carrier licensed by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, emphasizing reliable and affordable insurance coverage. The website reflects a focused business model targeting governmental clients with key services including insurance coverage, claims handling, and safety grants. The market position is that of a niche governmental insurer with over three decades of operational history, supported by clear contact information and trust signals such as Demotech ratings and social media presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and several plugins like Slider Revolution and Animate It. The infrastructure supports moderate performance with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility. SEO elements such as meta tags and structured data are well implemented, enhancing discoverability. However, some technical improvements are recommended, including enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers to strengthen the security posture. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protections but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers. There is no visible privacy policy, cookie consent mechanism, or incident response information, which are gaps in compliance and security transparency. Analytics and tracking are moderate, using services like Gaug.es and Jetpack Stats, but privacy compliance is weak due to missing policies. Overall, HARIE's website is professional, trustworthy, and well-aligned with its business purpose but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures. Strategic recommendations include implementing privacy and cookie policies, enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and pub…

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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching harie.org

This scan found 28 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. See sample alerts.

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
39
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
56

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

HARIE operates in a specialized niche providing insurance services to governmental and municipal entities in Pennsylvania. Its non-profit reciprocal insurance model positions it uniquely in the market, focusing on affordable and reliable coverage for public sector clients. The business leverages partnerships such as Excalibur for claims handling and maintains a modest but clear digital presence. The website content and structure indicate a stable organization with a clear target audience and service offering. Growth indicators include safety grants and scholarships, suggesting community engagement. The partnership ecosystem includes Demotech for financial ratings and FreshySites for web design. The company maintains a focused operational scope without evident subsidiaries or parent companies, emphasizing direct service delivery to governmental clients.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and domain registration includes client transfer prohibitions, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents missed opportunities to harden security. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries was found, but the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates limited transparency and preparedness. The use of third-party plugins and tracking services introduces potential risk vectors that require ongoing management. Compliance gaps exist regarding privacy and cookie policies, which are critical for GDPR and other regulations. Overall, the security posture is functional but could be significantly improved with better policy publication and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing attacks.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to protect against common web vulnerabilities.
  4. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure information, including security contact channels, to demonstrate security readiness and transparency.
  5. Conduct regular security audits of plugins and third-party scripts to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
HARIE
Description
HARIE is a non-profit insurance provider for Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and Municipal Entities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is a fully regulated reciprocal insurance carrier licensed by the Insurance Department of Pennsylvania, insuring governmental entities such as counties, cities, sewer and water authorities, transit authorities, boroughs, townships, and school districts.
Key services
Insurance coverage for governmental entities, Claims handling services via Excalibur, Safety grants and scholarships
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Slider Revolution, jQuery, Animate It plugin, DWD Map Extended plugin, Jetpack
Frameworks
WordPress CMS, Divi Framework
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Gaug.es, Jetpack Stats
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Gaug.es, Jetpack Stats
Marketing tools
Google Fonts, FontAwesome
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 challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. Contact information is clearly presented with phone, email, and physical address.
  4. Social media presence limited to Facebook only.
  5. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and several plugins including Slider Revolution.
  6. No explicit security policies or incident response information available.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found.
  8. Website content is professional and relevant to governmental insurance services.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  10. SEO and technical implementation are good but could improve security headers and DNSSEC.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress CMS platform using the Divi theme, which provides a flexible and visually appealing design framework. The use of popular plugins like Slider Revolution and Animate It adds dynamic content capabilities but also requires careful maintenance to avoid vulnerabilities. Performance is moderate, with some optimization possible. Mobile responsiveness is good, ensuring accessibility across devices. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers indicates technical debt in security hardening. Hosting details are limited, but the domain registrar is reputable. The site uses external resources such as Google Fonts and FontAwesome, which are standard but should be monitored for privacy implications. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs but would benefit from security and performance enhancements.
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 harie.org. 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 harie.org.

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.