Skip to main content

Security report for mpw.org

Muscatine Power and Water · Energy · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Muscatine Power and Water is a municipal utility provider offering internet, TV, phone, electric, and water services primarily to the Muscatine and Fruitland areas. The website reflects a medium-sized local utility business with a focus on community services. The digital infrastructure is built on WordPress with modern themes and SEO plugins, indicating a reasonable level of digital maturity. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and includes cookie consent mechanisms, though it lacks explicit privacy and terms of service pages. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and domain protections but could be improved by enabling DNSSEC and publishing security policies. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy, serving its target audience effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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. 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

  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 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 mpw.org

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. 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
57
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
78

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 company operates in the energy and telecommunications sectors, providing essential services to local residents and businesses. Its long domain age and consistent WHOIS data support its established market position. The business model is utility-based, likely funded through service fees and municipal support. The website's content and structure suggest a focus on customer service and local engagement. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the website data. The use of modern web technologies and SEO tools indicates an intent to maintain a competitive digital presence.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and has domain transfer protections, which are positive security indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS reduces the overall security robustness. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, which could hinder transparency and responsiveness in case of security incidents. The cookie consent implementation aligns with privacy best practices, but the lack of a privacy policy page is a compliance gap. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analysis.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security against DNS spoofing.
  3. Implement standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to strengthen web security posture.
  4. Create and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain and improve security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Muscatine Power and Water
Description
Muscatine Power and Water provides internet, TV, phone, electric, and water services for Muscatine and Fruitland. Pay your bill, report outages, start or stop service, and get local support.
Key services
internet, TV, phone, electric, water
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Kadence theme and Kadence Blocks plugin, Typekit fonts, CookieYes cookie consent
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • clientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
CookieYes
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained municipal utility provider site.
  2. No privacy or terms of service pages found on the homepage or linked in metadata.
  3. Cookie consent is implemented via CookieYes.
  4. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  5. Use of modern WordPress theme and SEO plugin indicates good digital maturity.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Kadence theme and Kadence Blocks plugin, supported by Yoast SEO for search optimization. It uses Typekit for fonts and CookieYes for cookie consent management. Hosting is provided by MachLink, as indicated by the nameservers. The site is mobile-optimized and performs moderately well, though no explicit performance metrics were available. The HTML and CSS are valid and modern, but security headers are missing. The site integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and additional compliance documentation.
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 mpw.org. 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 mpw.org.

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.