Skip to main content

Security report for reviewjournal.com

Las Vegas Review-Journal · Media · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Las Vegas Review-Journal is a prominent local news media organization serving Nevada, particularly the Las Vegas area. It offers a wide range of news coverage including local news, sports, business, gaming, and entertainment. The website is well-branded and professionally designed, targeting a general audience with a business model based on advertising and subscriptions. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager, Prebid.js for header bidding, and Osano for consent management, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and consent-based script loading, though some security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is robust with clear policies and consent mechanisms in place. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally maintained, though WHOIS data is unavailable likely due to registry restrictions. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing incident response info, and improving accessibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

4 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

  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

  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 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

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

Keep watching reviewjournal.com

This scan found 23 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
45
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
70

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 Review-Journal holds a leading market position as Nevada's most trusted news source. Its competitive advantage lies in comprehensive local coverage and diversified content including classifieds and e-editions. Revenue streams include advertising partnerships with multiple ad networks and subscription services. The target customer segment is broad, encompassing local residents and businesses. The company maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with related domains handling classifieds, obituaries, and sponsored content. Growth indicators include active personalization and consent management technologies. The business operates at a large scale with consistent branding and high content quality.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive consent management platform (Osano) supporting GDPR and CCPA compliance. Script blocking based on user consent reduces privacy risks. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. Overall, the security culture appears strong but could benefit from formalized disclosures and additional header protections.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance browser security.
  2. Create and make accessible an incident response policy and contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and ad networks to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to comply with WCAG standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Description
The Las Vegas Review-Journal is Nevada's most trusted source for local news, Las Vegas sports, business news, gaming news, entertainment news and more.
Key services
Local news reporting, Sports coverage, Business news, Gaming news, Entertainment news, Classifieds, E-edition, Subscription services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Prebid.js, Osano Consent Management, Sophi.io personalization, Marfeel SDK, DoubleClick for Publishers (Google Ad Manager)
Frameworks
WordPress theme rjth2019
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Consent management for GDPR and CCPA
  • Script blocking based on consent
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Sophi.io
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ad Manager (DoubleClick), Pubmatic, Adkernel, Opsco, Sharethrough, Criteo, Mediafuse, Kargo, Nativo
Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (gtag.js), Marfeel Pixel, Osano Consent Management
Marketing tools
Osano Consent Management, Sophi.io personalization
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a major local news provider for Las Vegas and Nevada region
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy management implemented
  3. Multiple advertising partners and ad networks integrated
  4. Use of modern web technologies and personalization tools
  5. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, possibly due to registry restrictions
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage
  8. Strong SEO and social media presence implied by metadata and links
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress with a custom theme and uses a variety of modern JavaScript libraries and third-party services for analytics, advertising, and personalization. The use of Prebid.js and multiple ad bidders indicates a sophisticated programmatic advertising setup. Consent management is handled by Osano, ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading and lazy loading of images. SEO is supported by structured data (JSON-LD) and comprehensive meta tags. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing security monitoring.
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. 67/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with reviewjournal.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 reviewjournal.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.