Skip to main content

Security report for mdmc-law.com

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP is a well-established law firm with a professional online presence showcasing 40 years of client-focused legal services. The firm offers a broad range of legal disciplines and emphasizes professionalism and client trust. The website is built on Drupal 10, employs modern web technologies, and includes privacy and cookie consent mechanisms indicating compliance with data protection regulations. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises questions about domain registration transparency. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS and privacy controls, but lacks explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security disclosures.

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

3 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 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

  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

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

Keep watching mdmc-law.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
72
Security headers
55
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
74

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 targets business clients seeking legal expertise across multiple industries and practices. It maintains a strong market position with a history of awards and recognitions. The business model is traditional professional services, relying on attorney expertise and client relationships. The website supports marketing and client engagement through news, insights, and social media channels. The lack of direct contact details on the homepage suggests contact is likely managed through internal channels or dedicated pages. The firm appears to invest in branding consistency and digital presence, partnering with a design agency and using analytics for insights.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and anonymizes IPs in Google Analytics, demonstrating basic security hygiene. Cookie consent is implemented, supporting privacy compliance. However, no security headers were detected in the provided data, and no explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. The missing WHOIS data is a concern for domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by adding security headers, publishing security policies, and enhancing transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Provide clear and accessible contact information including phone numbers and emails for client and security inquiries.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP
Description
McElroy Deutsch is a top law firm of talented legal professionals who perform high-quality work in a range of disciplines for reasonable rates.
Key services
legal representation, industry-specific legal services, litigation, insurance services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Typekit fonts, CookieConsent
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • IP anonymization in Google Analytics
  • cookie consent banner with opt-out

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich
  2. Uses modern CMS (Drupal 10) and web technologies
  3. Includes cookie consent and privacy policy indicating GDPR awareness
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage
  5. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter
  6. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual for a law firm
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response info found
  8. No security headers detected in provided data
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and secure CMS platform. It uses Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, with IP anonymization enabled. The site loads Typekit fonts and uses CookieConsent for cookie management. The design is responsive and optimized for mobile devices. Performance is moderate, with some external dependencies. No hosting provider information was detected. The site includes structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and social media integration. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from performance optimization and enhanced security configurations.
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 mdmc-law.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 mdmc-law.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.