Skip to main content

Security report for nvcourts.gov

Nevada Judiciary · Government · United States

High risk. 20 critical or high findings in Email security, Network security and 3 other checks.

Security score

43/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Nevada Judiciary website serves as the official online presence for the judicial branch of the State of Nevada, providing comprehensive information about court locations, appellate courts, legal resources, self-help centers, and judicial programs. It targets residents, legal professionals, and the public seeking authoritative court information. The site is well-structured with clear navigation and relevant content, reflecting a mature government service entity founded in 2013. Technically, the site employs modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Moment.js, uses Google Tag Manager for analytics, and is served over HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate. Mobile optimization and accessibility features are good, supporting a positive user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and domain transfer protection, though DNSSEC is not enabled and security headers are not explicitly detected. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies or consent mechanisms. No contact emails or phone numbers are explicitly provided in the HTML content, which may impact user trust and compliance. Overall, the domain registration is consistent with a government entity, using privacy protection appropriately. The site is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy disclosures and security headers.

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

20 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

      Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: SMB

      Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

      Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

      Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching nvcourts.gov

This scan found 40 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
42
Security headers
40
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
68
Average
43

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 · found on this site
  • 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

Nevada Judiciary holds a strong market position as the official government judiciary website for the State of Nevada. Its business model is service-oriented, providing public access to court information and legal resources. The site supports various judicial programs and commissions, indicating a broad partnership ecosystem within the government and legal community. The absence of commercial advertising and affiliate programs aligns with its government service nature. The website's content and navigation cater to diverse user segments including litigants, attorneys, and the general public. Growth indicators include active news updates and program information. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to improve transparency and user engagement by publishing privacy and cookie policies and providing clear contact channels for security and data protection inquiries.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protection in place. However, the lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security represent areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy limits transparency in incident response readiness. Privacy compliance gaps exist due to missing privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. The site does not provide explicit contact channels for security incidents or data protection officers, which could hinder incident response effectiveness. Overall, the security culture appears cautious but could be enhanced by adopting best practices in security headers, DNSSEC, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with user consent mechanisms to improve privacy compliance.
  2. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen browser security.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents, including a security or abuse email address and data protection officer contact details.
  5. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and improve security transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Nevada Judiciary
Description
The Nevada Judiciary website provides information and resources related to the judicial system of the State of Nevada, including court locations, appellate courts, self-help centers, legal resources, programs and services, and information about the judiciary.
Key services
Court location finder, Case search, Legal self-help resources, Judicial programs and services, Access to court forms and documents, Judicial directory and reports
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jwplayer, Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Moment.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure cookies and serverTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official Nevada Judiciary website with comprehensive court and legal resources.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policy found on the homepage HTML.
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers in the HTML content.
  4. Uses HTTPS with valid SSL certificate.
  5. No WAF or security challenge detected; site content fully accessible.
  6. Uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  8. Domain WHOIS is privacy protected but consistent with government use.
  9. Good mobile optimization and accessibility features observed.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a custom or unknown CMS platform with modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery and Moment.js, and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics. The HTML and CSS are valid and the site is mobile optimized with good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with images and assets properly sized for responsive design. The site lacks advanced frameworks or platforms but maintains a stable and professional technical infrastructure suitable for a government judiciary website. Opportunities exist to modernize by adopting security headers and DNSSEC, and to improve SEO by adding more descriptive meta tags and structured data. No critical technical debt or risks were identified that would impact business operations.
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 nvcourts.gov. 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 nvcourts.gov.

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.