Skip to main content

Security report for lawyers.com

Lawyers.com · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Lawyers.com is an established online legal directory and information platform that helps individuals find the right lawyer for their legal issues. The website offers free legal information, a lawyer directory, and an 'ask a lawyer' advice service, targeting individuals seeking legal assistance. The site is professionally designed with consistent branding and good content quality, serving a general audience interested in legal matters. Technically, the website uses standard web technologies including jQuery UI and custom JavaScript. It is mobile optimized with good SEO practices and basic accessibility features. The site enforces HTTPS and includes some security best practices such as CSRF tokens, but lacks several important security headers and formal security policies. From a security perspective, the site has a good SSL configuration but minimal security headers and no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The WHOIS data for the domain is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain registration transparency and trustworthiness. However, the website content and social media presence support its legitimacy. Overall, Lawyers.com presents a professional and trustworthy front for legal services, but improvements in security headers, incident response transparency, and WHOIS data availability would enhance its security posture and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

5 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. 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching lawyers.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
42
Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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

Lawyers.com operates as a large-scale legal directory and information service, positioning itself as a key resource for individuals seeking legal advice and lawyer referrals. Its business model revolves around providing free legal content and connecting users with legal professionals, likely monetized through advertising or lead generation. The site targets a broad audience of legal service seekers and maintains consistent branding and professional content. The absence of detailed company registration data and WHOIS transparency is a notable gap. The platform's partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed, and no subsidiaries or parent companies are identified.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and CSRF protection in place. However, it lacks comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no public incident response or vulnerability disclosure policy, and no security.txt file is present. The absence of WHOIS data reduces domain trustworthiness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a content and directory site but could be improved to better protect user data and enhance trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement additional security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen web security.
  2. Publish a formal incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure program, including a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  3. Enhance WHOIS transparency or provide domain registration details to improve trust and legitimacy perception.
  4. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any potential vulnerabilities in scripts and forms.
  5. Improve accessibility features and provide more detailed privacy compliance disclosures to align with GDPR and other regulations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lawyers.com
Description
Find the right lawyer for your legal issue. Get free legal information. Ask lawyers for advice. Solve your legal problem.
Key services
Lawyer directory, Legal information articles, Ask a lawyer advice service
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery UI, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3
Frameworks
jQuery UI
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF token present in meta tags

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Content is focused on legal services and lawyer directory
  3. No explicit or adult content detected
  4. Security headers are minimal but HTTPS is enforced
  5. WHOIS data is missing, which is a risk factor
  6. Privacy and cookie policies are present and comprehensive
  7. Contact information is available via contact form and phone
  8. No visible incident response or security policy pages
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  10. Technical stack is standard with jQuery UI and custom scripts
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional web technology stack with jQuery UI and custom JavaScript for UI components and interactions. The HTML and CSS are valid and the site is mobile responsive with good SEO meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with some room for optimization. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected. The site lacks modern JavaScript frameworks or advanced performance optimizations but is stable and functional. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist, especially in security and accessibility enhancements.
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 lawyers.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 lawyers.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.