Skip to main content

Security report for osborneclarke.com

Osborne Clarke · Other · United Kingdom

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Osborne Clarke is a large international legal practice headquartered in the UK, with offices across Europe, Asia, and the USA. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including banking and finance, corporate law, dispute resolution, ESG, and regulatory compliance, targeting market leaders and fast-growth businesses. Their website demonstrates a mature digital presence built on Drupal 10, with good performance and mobile optimization, and a strong focus on content quality and user experience. Security posture is solid with modern TLS protocols, DMARC enforcement, and OCSP stapling, though improvements are recommended in DNSSEC, HSTS, and certificate transparency. The firm actively manages cookie consent and privacy compliance, reflecting GDPR adherence. Overall, Osborne Clarke presents a professional, trustworthy, and well-structured online presence aligned with their business objectives.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of osborneclarke.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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 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 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 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 osborneclarke.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
92
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
77

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention osborneclarke.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
60
Employees
0
Customers
29
Third parties
31
Weak passwords
10%

7 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for osborneclarke.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Osborne Clarke operates as an essential entity in the legal services sector, focusing on multiple industry sectors such as energy, financial services, healthcare, infrastructure, and technology. Their business model centers on providing expert legal advice combined with sector-specific insights and transformational trend analysis. The firm maintains a strong market position with international reach and a comprehensive portfolio of services. Their content strategy includes thought leadership, news, events, and sector insights, supporting client engagement and brand authority. Partnerships and related domains support specialized content delivery and client education. The firm targets international corporate clients and legal professionals, emphasizing innovation and transformation in business practices.

Security posture

The website's security maturity is good, with enforced DMARC policies, valid SPF records, and support for TLS 1.3 and 1.2 protocols. OCSP stapling is enabled and functioning correctly, reducing certificate validation latency. However, the absence of DNSSEC and CAA records introduces potential DNS spoofing risks. The lack of HSTS and preload settings weakens HTTPS enforcement, and missing certificate transparency compliance reduces visibility into certificate issuance. No explicit security policy or incident response information is publicly available, which could impact transparency and trust. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms were found, limiting coordinated vulnerability reporting. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhancements in DNS security and public disclosure practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  3. Achieve certificate transparency compliance to enhance certificate issuance transparency.
  4. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.
  5. Add explicit security and incident response policies on the website to increase transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10 CMS, leveraging modern web technologies including JavaScript and CSS for dynamic content and responsive design. Hosting is provided via Amazon AWS infrastructure, indicated by the IP address. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 4.4 seconds and a page size of about 400 KB, which is reasonable for a content-rich legal services site. The site is well optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with clear navigation and multi-language support. The technical stack is modern and maintainable, though opportunities exist to improve security headers and DNS configurations to reduce risk and enhance trust.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with osborneclarke.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 osborneclarke.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.