Skip to main content

Security report for laart.la

Aerial Rapid Transit LLC · Transportation · United States

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART) is a small-scale transportation project proposing a zero emissions aerial gondola system to connect key locations in Los Angeles, including Union Station, Chinatown, and Dodger Stadium. The project is affiliated with a non-profit and aims to reduce traffic congestion and pollution by providing an alternative transit option. The website serves as an informational and engagement platform, offering contact forms and social media links to connect with the community. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common plugins and external integrations such as Google Analytics and Vimeo for media content. However, the site suffers from slow load times and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security and user trust. The absence of modern security headers and privacy policies further weakens its compliance posture. From a security perspective, the site has basic SPF email protection but lacks HTTPS, HSTS, and DMARC records, exposing visitors to potential risks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. Overall, the security posture is weak and requires urgent improvements to protect user data and enhance trust. Strategically, the website should prioritize obtaining a valid SSL certificate, implementing privacy and cookie policies, and enhancing security headers. Improving site performance and accessibility will also benefit user experience and SEO. These steps will strengthen the project's credibility and support its mission to promote sustainable transportation in Los Angeles.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 laart.la

This scan found 24 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
25
GDPR outside view
25
Average
52
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

LA ART positions itself as an innovative transportation solution targeting environmentally conscious residents and visitors of Los Angeles. Its competitive advantage lies in offering a zero emissions transit option that connects major transit hubs and event centers efficiently. The business model includes free rides for event attendees and fare-based rides for local users, indicating a hybrid public-private approach. The project leverages partnerships with non-profits and community organizations to build support. Growth indicators include active social media engagement and community sign-up forms. However, the lack of detailed business and legal information on the website limits transparency. The partnership ecosystem appears focused on environmental and transit stakeholders, with no evident commercial subsidiaries or parent companies.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of the LA ART website is low. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS implementation is a critical vulnerability that undermines all other security measures. The lack of HTTP security headers and DMARC records further exposes the site to common web threats and email spoofing. No documented incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are present, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. Data protection practices are minimal, with personal data collected via contact forms but no visible privacy or cookie policies to inform users. The security culture appears nascent, with reliance on basic SPF and no advanced protections. Immediate remediation is required to meet GDPR and NIS2 compliance standards and to safeguard user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Implement HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Add DMARC records to improve email authentication and reduce phishing risks.
  5. Establish an incident response plan and publish vulnerability disclosure guidelines to enhance security readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on infrastructure using DomainControl nameservers, likely GoDaddy. It runs on WordPress CMS with plugins such as Contact Form 7, Jetpack, Mega Menu, and Google Language Translator. The tech stack includes jQuery, FontAwesome, and Vimeo for media embedding. Performance is suboptimal with a load time exceeding 22 seconds and a large page size (~633 KB). The site lacks modern TLS protocols and does not enforce HTTPS, which is a significant technical debt. SEO is basic with meta tags present but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags detected. Accessibility features are minimal but present. The site uses Google Analytics for tracking but lacks cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, modernization and security hardening are needed to reduce technical risks and improve user experience.
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 laart.la. 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 laart.la.

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.