Skip to main content

Security report for m4law.com

McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP · Other · United States

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP is a well-established full-service law firm based in Honolulu, Hawaii, serving individuals, businesses, and government entities since 1989. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including litigation, real estate, corporate law, trusts and estates, public finance, construction, health care, and immigration law. Their market position is strong within the Hawaiian legal landscape, supported by a team of over 30 attorneys and multiple industry recognitions such as Best Lawyers in America® honorees. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with comprehensive content tailored to their target audience of local clients and organizations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

9 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

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

Keep watching m4law.com

This scan found 23 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
37
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
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
  • 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 a traditional law firm business model focused on providing expert legal counsel across diverse practice areas. Their competitive advantage lies in their deep local expertise combined with a boutique firm's personalized service and a large firm's resources. The firm targets a broad client base including individuals, companies, and government agencies in Hawaii. Growth indicators include recent partner promotions and summer associate programs. The website does not reveal direct revenue streams but implies a service-based revenue model. No explicit partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The firm maintains a professional online presence with clear navigation and detailed attorney profiles, supporting client trust and engagement.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, indicating basic transport security, but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security, which are recommended best practices. No forms collecting sensitive data are present on the main pages, reducing immediate risk exposure. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure policies or incident response contacts, which could improve transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is partial; a privacy policy and terms of service are present but no cookie consent mechanism is detected. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a concern, as it reduces transparency and may indicate privacy protection or data source limitations. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be enhanced with additional headers, policies, and compliance features.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  3. Publish explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies, including security contact emails, to demonstrate security maturity and readiness.
  4. Investigate and clarify domain WHOIS information to improve transparency and trustworthiness.
  5. Consider integrating analytics with privacy-respecting configurations to better understand user engagement while maintaining compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP
Description
M4 Law — Hawaii's premier full-service law firm, serving individuals, businesses, and governments since 1989.
Key services
Litigation & ADR, Real Estate & Development, Corporate & Business Law, Trusts & Estates, Public Finance, Construction, Health Care, Immigration
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS implied by URL
  • No visible exposed sensitive data

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Professional law firm website with comprehensive practice area coverage
  2. Clear and consistent branding with multiple attorney profiles
  3. No visible forms collecting personal data on main pages
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie banners detected
  5. WHOIS data unavailable, which is unusual for a law firm domain
  6. No social media links found in the HTML content
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  8. No security headers visible in provided data
  9. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, and uses Google Fonts for typography. The site is mobile responsive with good accessibility and SEO optimization. No CMS or hosting provider is explicitly identified. Performance appears moderate with no heavy external dependencies or tracking scripts detected. The site structure is clear and navigation is intuitive, supporting a positive user experience. Technical risks are low but could be mitigated further by adding security headers and improving privacy mechanisms.
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 m4law.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 m4law.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.