Skip to main content

Security report for rmclegal.com

Regulatory Management Counselors, P.C. · Other · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Regulatory Management Counselors, P.C. (RMC Legal) is a specialized professional corporation providing legal, regulatory, and compliance consulting services primarily to the casino gaming industry and other heavily regulated sectors. The company leverages decades of experience to assist clients with regulatory management, compliance reviews, and government relations. Their market position is that of a niche expert with a focused client base in the United States. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, hosted by Flywheel, and uses modern web technologies including jQuery, AOS, and Contact Form 7, with SEO enhancements via Yoast. The site is performant and mobile optimized but lacks some advanced accessibility features. Security-wise, the site has a valid SSL certificate but does not support modern TLS protocols and lacks several security headers and policies such as HSTS and security.txt. Contact information is clearly provided, but privacy and cookie policies are absent, indicating potential compliance gaps. Overall, the site presents a professional image with moderate trustworthiness but would benefit from enhanced security and compliance measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

7 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 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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching rmclegal.com

This scan found 21 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
70
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
63

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

RMC Legal operates in a specialized legal and regulatory consulting niche focused on the casino gaming industry. Their competitive advantage lies in deep industry knowledge and a multidisciplinary team including legal, business, government, and public relations professionals. The business model centers on professional services with revenue likely derived from consulting and legal fees. Their target customers are businesses and individuals in heavily regulated industries requiring compliance and regulatory management. The company maintains a partnership ecosystem including related sites like michigangaming.com, enhancing their market presence. Growth indicators include active content updates and professional marketing efforts. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to expand digital presence and formalize compliance documentation to strengthen client trust.

Security posture

The current security posture of the website is moderate but with notable gaps. The presence of a valid SSL certificate and basic security headers like X-Content-Type-Options and X-XSS-Protection are positive indicators. However, the absence of TLS 1.2 or higher protocols, lack of HSTS, and missing security policies such as privacy, cookie, and incident response reduce the overall security maturity. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files are present, limiting transparency and incident handling readiness. The use of Google Analytics without visible cookie consent mechanisms raises privacy compliance concerns under GDPR and similar regulations. The site would benefit from implementing modern TLS protocols, enhanced security headers, documented privacy and cookie policies, and a formal vulnerability disclosure process to improve security culture and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable and enforce TLS 1.2 or higher protocols to secure data in transit.
  2. Implement HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to prevent protocol downgrade attacks.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear user consent mechanisms.
  4. Add a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and incident response.
  5. Enhance security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP) and Referrer-Policy for better protection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS hosted on Flywheel with caching and CDN support via Fastly. The technology stack includes jQuery, AOS for animations, Contact Form 7 for forms, and Yoast SEO for search optimization. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility. The site uses Google Analytics for user tracking but lacks advanced privacy controls. Technical debt is low but modernization opportunities exist in upgrading TLS protocols and adding security headers. The site is well maintained with recent content updates and structured data for SEO. Technical risks include outdated SSL/TLS configurations and missing security policies that could impact business operations and compliance.
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 rmclegal.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 rmclegal.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.