Skip to main content

Security report for interlaw.com

Interlaw Ltd. · Other · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Interlaw Ltd. operates as a nonprofit global legal network connecting over 8,000 lawyers worldwide through a vetted membership of full-service corporate law firms. The organization provides multinational clients with seamless cross-border legal services, emphasizing professional and ethical standards. The website reflects a mature, well-branded presence with multiple industry recognitions and client testimonials, positioning Interlaw as a trusted elite network in the legal sector. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager and responsive design, hosted likely on AWS infrastructure. The site is performant with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, with a clear cookie consent mechanism. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no direct company contact emails or phone numbers are provided, relying instead on contact forms. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy in content and design but would benefit from improved transparency in domain registration, enhanced security headers, and more explicit security governance documentation to strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

3 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 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. 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 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

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

Keep watching interlaw.com

This scan found 17 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
75
Security headers
50
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
79

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

Interlaw's market positioning as an elite global legal network is supported by its multiple top-tier awards and a strong client testimonial base. Its nonprofit business model facilitates collaboration among independent law firms, offering clients a unique alternative to large multinational law firms. The target audience includes multinational corporations and legal professionals requiring cross-border legal expertise. The organization leverages strategic partnerships and a global directory to maintain competitive advantage. Growth indicators include expanding membership and consistent recognition in authoritative legal directories. The partnership ecosystem is robust, with dedicated portals and directories enhancing member collaboration and client access.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate to good, with HTTPS enforced and no visible security flaws in the website code. The lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published incident response or security policies indicate gaps in formal security governance. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, limiting external reporting channels. Data protection practices appear adequate with GDPR-compliant privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly documented, suggesting room for improvement in transparency and preparedness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit security and incident response policies on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program, including a security.txt file, to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to meet recognized standards and improve user inclusivity.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and build trust with visitors and clients.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Interlaw Ltd.
Description
Interlaw is a global network of over 8,000 first-class lawyers providing cross-border legal services through a nonprofit association of distinguished full-service corporate law firms. It offers clients access to legal expertise worldwide with a focus on professional and ethical standards.
Key services
Cross-border legal advice, Corporate law services, Strategic legal partnerships, Access to vetted member law firms worldwide
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Material Icons, Modernizr (for IE support)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking detected.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy restrictions.
  3. Strong presence of legal network branding and multiple awards.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via forms.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and responsive design.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, Material Icons for UI elements, and Slick Carousel for interactive content sliders. It supports legacy browsers with conditional scripts for IE8 and IE9. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure, leveraging S3 for static assets. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and SEO optimization. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary solution. Technical risks include missing security headers and potential reliance on third-party scripts without explicit vulnerability management.
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 interlaw.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 interlaw.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.