Skip to main content

Security report for mccourtpartners.com

McCourt Partners · Real Estate · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

McCourt Partners is a family-owned real estate development, investment, and management company with a strong focus on community impact and innovative projects. The company positions itself as a visionary leader blending financial results with social responsibility, operating primarily in the United States with projects also internationally. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear business messaging and multiple contact channels including forms and social media. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frontend libraries such as Swiper.js and uses LiteSpeed Cache for performance optimization. However, the site suffers from a lack of a valid SSL certificate and does not serve content over HTTPS, which is a critical security and trust issue. Performance is moderate to slow, with a load time of over 7 seconds, and accessibility is basic but mobile optimization is good. From a security perspective, the site has SPF and DMARC records configured properly for email protection but lacks HTTPS, HSTS, OCSP stapling, and other important security headers. No advanced security policies or incident response information is publicly available. Privacy compliance is minimal with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding security headers, and improving privacy compliance mechanisms.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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 mccourtpartners.com

This scan found 18 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
50
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

McCourt Partners operates in the real estate sector focusing on development, investment, and management with a legacy-driven, community-oriented business model. Their market positioning is strong as a visionary family-owned company with a portfolio of innovative projects across the US and globally. The company targets investors, developers, and community stakeholders, emphasizing social impact alongside financial returns. The website content and structured data reinforce their brand credibility and market presence. No parent or subsidiary companies are identified. The company leverages digital channels including social media and contact forms for engagement but lacks visible advanced marketing or analytics tools.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While SPF and DMARC email protections are correctly configured, the absence of TLS protocols, HSTS, and other security headers indicates limited defense-in-depth. No incident response or security policy information is published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are found. Forms do not show advanced protections like CAPTCHA. The site is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and may suffer from reduced user trust and SEO penalties. Immediate remediation is required to secure communications and improve overall security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and install a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  5. Deploy a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  6. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency.
  7. Regularly audit and update all third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  8. Improve website performance by optimizing resource loading and reducing page load time.
  9. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards for broader user inclusivity.
  10. Consider implementing analytics and marketing tools with privacy compliance in mind.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing jQuery and Swiper.js for interactive elements, and LiteSpeed Cache for performance optimization. Google Maps API is integrated for location services. DNS records are properly configured with SPF and DMARC for email security. However, the SSL certificate is missing or invalid, and no TLS protocols are enabled, resulting in unencrypted HTTP traffic. The site has moderate load times (~7.4 seconds) and good mobile responsiveness but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Hosting provider details are not explicit but DNS is managed via DomainControl (GoDaddy). The technical debt includes missing HTTPS, lack of security headers, and absence of cookie consent 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 mccourtpartners.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 mccourtpartners.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.