Skip to main content

Security report for pplegal.eu

P&P Legal · Other · Slovakia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

P&P Legal is a Slovak law firm established in 2018, providing comprehensive legal services across multiple domains including commercial law, litigation, family law, and constitutional law. The firm targets both local and foreign clients, emphasizing professionalism, confidentiality, and security, supported by a liability insurance coverage of 1,500,000 €. The website reflects a small but professional legal practice with clear service offerings and contact information. Technically, the website is built on WordPress 4.9.26 with common libraries such as jQuery and Select2, and employs Google reCAPTCHA for form security. HTTPS is enforced, and cookie consent mechanisms are in place, indicating a reasonable level of digital maturity. However, the WordPress version is outdated, and some security headers are missing, suggesting room for improvement in security hardening. Security posture is solid with HTTPS, liability insurance disclosure, and spam protection on forms, but lacks explicit security policies or incident response contacts. Privacy compliance is good with GDPR-aligned cookie consent and privacy policy available. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious indicators were found. Overall, the website and business present a trustworthy and professional image with moderate technical sophistication. Strategic improvements in security headers, CMS updates, and enhanced mobile and accessibility features would strengthen the digital presence and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

  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 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 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';…

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

Keep watching pplegal.eu

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
45

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

P&P Legal operates as a small law firm focused on commercial and civil law in Slovakia, serving both domestic and international clients. Its competitive advantage lies in broad legal expertise, multilingual service (Slovak, Czech, English), and liability insurance coverage. The business model is service-based, relying on legal advisory and representation. The firm maintains a clear brand identity and consistent messaging emphasizing professionalism and client trust. Social media presence on Facebook and Instagram supports client engagement. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified, indicating an independent operation. The firm’s market position is that of a reliable local legal partner with a comprehensive service portfolio.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate to good. The website enforces HTTPS and uses Google reCAPTCHA to protect contact forms from spam. Liability insurance coverage is prominently disclosed, indicating risk management awareness. However, the absence of HTTP security headers (such as CSP, HSTS) and lack of explicit security or incident response policies reduce the overall security posture. The outdated WordPress version may expose the site to vulnerabilities if not regularly patched. GDPR compliance is evident through cookie consent and privacy policy, but no dedicated security or incident response contacts are provided. Overall, the security culture appears professional but could benefit from formalized policies and technical enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance browser security.
  2. Update WordPress and all plugins to the latest versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish explicit security policies and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Improve mobile optimization and accessibility to enhance user experience across devices.
  5. Regularly audit and monitor website security posture and privacy compliance to maintain trust and regulatory adherence.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
P&P Legal s.r.o.
Registration number
122493/B
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
P&P Legal
Description
P&P Legal law firm provides comprehensive legal services in all areas of professional and private life throughout Slovakia, offering services in almost all areas of law with insurance coverage of 1,500,000 €.
Key services
Commercial law, Litigation, European law, Family law, Constitutional law, Civil law, Labor law
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 4.9.26, jQuery, Select2, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced via script redirect
  • Google reCAPTCHA on contact form
  • Liability insurance disclosed

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with forced redirect.
  2. Contact form includes Google reCAPTCHA for spam protection.
  3. Cookie consent banner present with GDPR compliance.
  4. No explicit terms of service found.
  5. No visible security.txt or incident response contacts.
  6. Website built on an older WordPress version (4.9.26).
  7. Social media presence on Facebook and Instagram.
  8. Company discloses liability insurance coverage.
  9. Physical address and phone number clearly displayed.
  10. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond essential plugins.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 4.9.26, utilizing jQuery, Select2, and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for enhanced user interaction and spam protection. The site enforces HTTPS via a JavaScript redirect, ensuring secure communications. SEO is supported by Yoast SEO plugin metadata and structured data in JSON-LD format, improving search engine visibility. Performance is moderate, with external resources loaded from reputable CDNs. Accessibility and mobile optimization are basic but functional. The site lacks modern security headers and uses an outdated CMS version, indicating technical debt and potential security risks. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified from the 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 pplegal.eu. 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 pplegal.eu.

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.