Skip to main content

Security report for reviewjournal.com

Las Vegas Review-Journal · Media · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

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 Las Vegas. It provides comprehensive coverage across news, sports, business, gaming, and entertainment sectors. The website demonstrates a mature digital presence with a subscription and advertising-based business model, targeting a broad general audience interested in regional news and events. The brand is well-established with consistent branding and multiple content verticals, including video and podcasts. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and leverages modern web technologies such as jQuery, Google Tag Manager, New Relic for performance monitoring, and various advertising and analytics platforms. The site is mobile-optimized and employs standard SEO and accessibility practices, though some accessibility improvements could be made. Performance is moderate, with a good balance of content richness and loading speed. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and includes several security headers, indicating a solid baseline security posture. However, explicit security policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly available, representing areas for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional, with a strong market position in local media. The absence of WHOIS data is a minor concern but likely due to privacy or registry limitations. Strategic recommendations include publishing security and incident response policies, enhancing accessibility, and maintaining vigilance on third-party scripts and advertising integrations.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of reviewjournal.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

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 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 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 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 24 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
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
67

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 Las Vegas Review-Journal holds a leading position in Nevada's local news market, leveraging a hybrid revenue model of advertising and subscriptions. Its extensive content offerings and multiple specialized sections cater to diverse audience interests, from local politics to entertainment. The company benefits from a strong digital ecosystem including partner domains for subscriptions, classifieds, and obituaries. Its competitive advantage lies in brand recognition, comprehensive local coverage, and integration of multimedia content. Growth indicators include active subscription campaigns and digital marketing tools. The partnership ecosystem includes advertising networks and content sponsors, supporting monetization and audience engagement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of security headers like HSTS, CSP, and X-Frame-Options, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The integration of monitoring tools such as New Relic suggests active performance and error tracking. However, the lack of publicly available security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure channels indicates gaps in transparency and preparedness. The extensive use of third-party advertising and analytics scripts necessitates ongoing security audits to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, the site is secure but could enhance trust by publishing formal security documentation and incident response procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and user trust.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program, including a security.txt file.
  3. Enhance website accessibility to meet WCAG standards more comprehensively.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and advertising integrations to reduce security risks.
  5. Improve cookie consent mechanisms with clearer user controls and data retention disclosures.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Las Vegas Review-Journal
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, Video content, Podcasts
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, New Relic, Marfeel SDK, Prebid.js, JWPlayer, DoubleClick, Cloudinary
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF protections likely

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics, New Relic
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
DoubleClick, PubMatic, Adkernel, Opsco, Sharethrough, Criteo, MediaFuse, Kargo, Nativo
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, New Relic, Taboola, Marfeel
Marketing tools
Marfeel SDK, Mather Analytics
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking detected.
  2. Uses modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  3. Strong local news media presence with multiple content sections.
  4. Advertising and subscription model evident.
  5. No explicit security or incident response policies found publicly.
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, but website appears legitimate and established.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and New Relic for analytics and performance monitoring. Advertising is managed through multiple networks such as DoubleClick, PubMatic, and Criteo, integrated via Prebid.js for header bidding. Multimedia content uses JWPlayer and Cloudinary for media delivery. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and SEO practices, with structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine understanding. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in script loading and caching. The technical infrastructure supports a robust content delivery but requires continuous maintenance to manage third-party dependencies and security.
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. 70/100Medium31 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.