Skip to main content

Security report for kwgd.com

Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A. · Other · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A. is a large Ohio-based law firm offering a wide range of legal services across more than 25 practice areas with over 50 attorneys. The firm targets individuals and businesses seeking expert legal counsel, positioning itself as an established regional leader with a comprehensive service portfolio. Their website is professionally designed, mobile optimized, and SEO friendly, reflecting a mature digital presence. Technically, the site runs on WordPress with modern libraries and tracking tools such as Google Analytics and Tag Manager, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data, but lacks some security headers and cookie consent mechanisms, which are recommended for enhanced protection and compliance. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable anomaly that impacts trustworthiness, though the website content and branding are consistent and professional. Overall, the site presents a strong business front but could improve in transparency 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

7 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.

    • 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

  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';…

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

Keep watching kwgd.com

This scan found 24 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
32
Security headers
25
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
63

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 operates in the legal sector, serving a broad client base with diverse legal needs including business law, estate planning, litigation, and health care law. Its business model is service-oriented, relying on expert legal advice and representation. The firm demonstrates strong market positioning through its extensive practice areas and attorney count. The website's integration with social media platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn supports client engagement and brand visibility. While no direct contact emails or phone numbers are listed in the HTML, multiple office locations are referenced via contact forms, indicating a geographically distributed operation. The firm appears to maintain a professional and trustworthy image, though the lack of WHOIS transparency and cookie consent may affect client trust in privacy-conscious segments.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, and does not expose sensitive information in its HTML content. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces its defense against certain web-based attacks. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could hinder effective communication during security events. The use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager introduces moderate user tracking, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism is present, potentially impacting GDPR compliance. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, privacy notices, and incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data issue to improve domain trustworthiness and legitimacy perception.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure minimal privacy impact and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A.
Description
With over 50 attorneys practicing in over 25 different areas, our firm provides exceptional legal counsel to individuals and businesses everywhere.
Key services
Business Law, Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law, Employment Law Management, Litigation, Creditors’ Rights & Corporate Bankruptcy Law, Oil, Gas & Mineral Law, Health Care Law, Family Law, Real Estate Law, Workers’ Compensation Law
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Analytics, FontAwesome, Slick Slider, Lozad.js
Frameworks
PaperStreet WordPress Theme
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Professional law firm website with extensive practice area coverage
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for .com domain
  3. No direct company contact emails found in HTML; contact via forms only
  4. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  5. Good SEO and structured data implementation
  6. No security policy or incident response info published
  7. No security headers detected in provided data
  8. Uses Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking
  9. Social media presence on Facebook and LinkedIn
  10. Mobile optimized and accessible design
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the PaperStreet theme, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Slick Slider, and Lozad.js for lazy loading. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is moderate, with preloading of fonts and asynchronous loading of scripts. No hosting provider details were identified from the HTML content. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and rich snippets, indicating good SEO practices. Technical debt appears low, but security header implementation and cookie consent are areas for modernization.
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 kwgd.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 kwgd.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.