Skip to main content

Security report for indyalabama.com

Children's of Alabama Indy Grand Prix · Transportation · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Children’s of Alabama Indy Grand Prix website represents a well-established motorsports event held annually at Barber Motorsports Park in Birmingham, Alabama. The event supports the Children’s of Alabama hospital and is powered by AmFirst, indicating a strong charitable and community focus. The website provides comprehensive information about the event, ticketing, hospitality, fan activities, and sponsorship opportunities, targeting motorsports enthusiasts and local supporters. The site is professionally branded and maintains consistent messaging aligned with its charitable mission. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Total theme, incorporating modern web technologies such as jQuery, Revolution Slider, and Gravity Forms. It integrates Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing purposes. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with a user-friendly design and clear navigation. However, it lacks an explicit cookie consent mechanism, which may impact privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses standard tracking and marketing scripts. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities in the visible content. Security headers are not explicitly detected but HTTPS presence suggests a baseline security posture. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a concern for domain legitimacy, although the site content and branding appear trustworthy. No WAF or blocking mechanisms were detected, indicating full accessibility. Overall, the website demonstrates a solid digital presence with good content quality and technical implementation. Privacy compliance could be improved by adding cookie consent and GDPR indicators. The lack of WHOIS data reduces trustworthiness slightly but does not outweigh the professional presentation and clear business purpose. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing a vulnerability disclosure policy, and improving privacy compliance to strengthen trust and security posture.

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

8 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. 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching indyalabama.com

This scan found 25 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
57
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
62

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 Children’s of Alabama Indy Grand Prix holds a strong market position as a regional motorsports event with a charitable cause, leveraging partnerships with organizations like Children’s of Alabama hospital and AmFirst. Its business model combines event hosting, ticket sales, hospitality services, and charity fundraising. The target customer segments include motorsports fans, local community members, and charity supporters. The event’s longevity (15 years) indicates stable growth and community engagement. Partnerships with ticketing platforms and hospitality providers enhance operational capabilities. The website’s integration of social media and marketing tools supports audience engagement and brand visibility. The business ecosystem includes medical properties trust and ZoomMoto for media and ticketing, reflecting a collaborative approach. Growth indicators include active event promotion, fan activities, and sponsorship opportunities. Overall, the business operates in transportation, hospitality, and non-profit sectors with a medium-sized footprint and a focus on community impact.

Security posture

The website’s security posture is moderate to good. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring encrypted communications. The use of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel is standard but requires monitoring for privacy compliance. No explicit security headers were detected in the provided data, suggesting room for improvement in HTTP header security. The site does not expose sensitive data or show signs of vulnerabilities in the HTML content. The absence of a security.txt file or incident response contact reduces transparency for vulnerability reporting. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. The missing WHOIS data is a potential red flag for domain legitimacy but does not directly impact site security. Recommendations include adding security headers, implementing a vulnerability disclosure policy, and enhancing privacy controls to align with GDPR and other regulations. Overall, the site maintains a secure baseline but can improve in transparency and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident reporting.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent banner/mechanism to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels for security and privacy risks.
  5. Enhance WHOIS registration transparency or use verified domain registration to improve trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Children's of Alabama Indy Grand Prix
Description
Children’s of Alabama Indy Grand Prix powered by AmFirst, an annual motorsports event held at Barber Motorsports Park in Birmingham, Alabama, supporting Children’s of Alabama hospital.
Key services
Event ticket sales, Hospitality services, Fan activities, Charity fundraising
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Revolution Slider, Gravity Forms, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, UserWay Accessibility Widget
Frameworks
Total WordPress Theme
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel with consent
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed WordPress site for a motorsports charity event.
  2. Content is rich with event info, ticketing, hospitality, and fan activities.
  3. Contact info and social media links are clearly presented.
  4. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  5. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  6. WHOIS data is missing, which is a concern for domain legitimacy.
  7. Uses modern web technologies and tracking tools.
  8. No WAF or blocking detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using the Total theme and integrates several plugins including Revolution Slider and Gravity Forms. It uses jQuery and modern JavaScript libraries for interactivity and user experience. Analytics and marketing tools include Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Facebook Pixel. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features such as the UserWay widget. Performance is moderate, with some heavy slider elements but overall good loading times. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from updated security headers and privacy controls. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found. The site shows good SEO optimization with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts and missing WHOIS transparency. Opportunities exist for modernization by tightening security and privacy implementations.
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 indyalabama.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 indyalabama.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.