Skip to main content

Security report for k4law.com

K4 Law · Real Estate · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

K4 Law is a small, professional law firm based in Leicester, UK, specializing in property law, dispute resolution, wills, probate, court representation, and specialist law for the elderly. The firm emphasizes personal client contact, offering free initial consultations and transparent pricing. Their market position is supported by strong client testimonials and a high Google review rating, indicating a trusted local presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern tools such as Google Analytics and Tag Manager, and it is well optimized for mobile and SEO. Security posture is good with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, though some security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is limited due to the absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy, but the lack of WHOIS data for the domain raises some concerns about domain registration transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  4. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      No Name Servers Found

      Unable to find name servers for domain

      What to do: Configure proper name servers for the domain

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

Keep watching k4law.com

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
50
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
57

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 firm targets individuals and businesses in Leicester seeking legal services, particularly in real estate and elder law. Their business model is service-based, relying on client trust and reputation. The presence of multiple social media links and Google reviews suggests active client engagement and marketing efforts. The firm appears to operate independently without parent or subsidiary companies. The website content and structure support a clear value proposition focused on personalized legal advice and transparent fees. Growth indicators include recent content updates and active client feedback. No direct partnerships or payment processors were identified beyond standard analytics and social media platforms.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with HTTPS enforced and use of Google reCAPTCHA scripts to mitigate spam. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The lack of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and preparedness communication. Privacy compliance gaps exist due to missing privacy and cookie policies, which could expose the firm to regulatory risk under GDPR. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for a small law firm website but could be enhanced with improved headers, documented policies, and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  3. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure transparency and trust.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance client trust and preparedness.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
K4 Law
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
K4 Law
Description
K4 Law is a friendly firm of experienced solicitors based in Leicester offering straightforward legal advice. They provide free initial consultations and quotations, emphasizing personal contact and client communication.
Key services
Property, Dispute Resolution, Wills, Probate, and Lasting Powers of Attorney, Agency Work and Court Representation, Specialist Law for the Elderly
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Font Awesome, OpenLayers (for maps), Yoast SEO
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA script (v3)
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional legal services firm based in Leicester, UK.
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and service descriptions.
  3. Multiple client testimonials and Google reviews indicate positive reputation.
  4. No privacy or cookie policy pages explicitly found, which is a compliance gap.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual and reduces domain trust.
  6. HTTPS is enabled and Google Analytics and Tag Manager are used for tracking.
  7. No security policy or incident response information is publicly available.
  8. Contact information is clearly displayed including phone, email, and physical address.
  9. No signs of adult or inappropriate content; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics. It uses OpenLayers for map display and Yoast SEO for search optimization. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with good navigation clarity. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. No major technical debt or deprecated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available. The site uses standard SEO meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine understanding. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly online presence.
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 k4law.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 k4law.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.