Skip to main content

Security report for phillywebteam.com

Philly Web Team LLC · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 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

Philly Web Team LLC is a small technology service provider specializing in WordPress website design, hosting, maintenance, email marketing, and SEO services targeted at small and mid-sized businesses primarily in Philadelphia. The company positions itself as a reliable local partner offering comprehensive web solutions with ongoing support. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Betheme theme and integrates common marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel, with consent mode configured to deny tracking by default. The site is mobile-optimized and presents a professional design with clear navigation and relevant content. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enforced but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy, although the website content and structured data indicate a legitimate business. Privacy and cookie policies are not found, which impacts compliance assessment. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

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 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

  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 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

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

Keep watching phillywebteam.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
65
Security headers
35
Email security
87
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
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

Philly Web Team operates in the technology sector, focusing on WordPress web services for local businesses. Its business model revolves around service provision with revenue likely generated from design, hosting, and marketing services. The company leverages social media platforms for brand presence and client engagement. The market position is that of a specialized local provider with a small team size. The lack of WHOIS data and absence of formal policies may affect trust among potential clients. There is no indication of parent or subsidiary companies. The company appears to maintain a consistent brand image and provides clear contact information, which supports credibility.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others that enhance protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, limiting transparency in security management. The use of third-party scripts is present but managed with consent mode denying tracking, indicating some privacy awareness. The absence of privacy and cookie policies is a compliance gap, especially under GDPR. No exposed sensitive data or known vulnerabilities were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with better headers, policies, and disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Create and publish a security.txt file to provide vulnerability disclosure and incident response contact information.
  4. Verify and update domain registration information to ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for security vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Philly Web Team LLC
Description
Philly Web Team builds, hosts, and supports WordPress websites for small and mid-sized businesses with reliable design, security, and ongoing support.
Key services
WordPress website design, Website hosting, Website maintenance, Email marketing, SEO services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Slider Revolution, Google Fonts, Elfsight Widgets
Frameworks
Betheme WordPress theme
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel with consent mode set to deny

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
HubSpot scripts, Elfsight widgets
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content and no blocking detected.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered, which is unusual for an active business website.
  3. Contact information is clearly provided with company domain email and phone number.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage HTML content.
  5. Use of modern WordPress theme and plugins with standard marketing and analytics tools.
  6. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML content.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information available.
  8. Social media presence is strong with multiple platforms linked.
  9. Content is professional and business-focused with no adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using the Betheme theme, which is a popular and feature-rich theme. It uses standard web technologies including PHP, jQuery, and integrates Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site loads external resources from trusted domains and uses Google Fonts for typography. Performance is moderate with some optimization opportunities. Mobile responsiveness is good, ensuring usability across devices. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags, Open Graph, and structured data implemented. The lack of visible security headers and formal policies represents technical debt and compliance risks. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found in the HTML content.
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 phillywebteam.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 phillywebteam.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.