Skip to main content

Security report for stevenscarusolaw.com

Stevens Caruso · Other · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Stevens Caruso is a specialized criminal defense law firm based in Virginia, led by experienced attorneys Casey R. Stevens and Lisa K. Caruso. The firm focuses on a wide range of criminal defense services including DUI, domestic violence, drug charges, theft, murder, and white collar crimes. They emphasize personalized client service with limited client intake to ensure quality representation. The website is professionally designed, mobile optimized, and provides comprehensive information about the firm’s services and attorneys. Technically, the site uses modern tracking and security tools such as Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA, but lacks some security headers and a cookie consent mechanism. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable anomaly that slightly reduces trustworthiness, though the website content and external trust signals support legitimacy. Overall, the firm presents a strong market position in Northern Virginia criminal defense with a professional online presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching stevenscarusolaw.com

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
67
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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 firm targets individuals facing criminal charges in Northern Virginia, positioning itself as a leading criminal defense provider with strong local reputation and attorney accolades. Their business model is service-oriented with a focus on quality over quantity, limiting client intake to provide dedicated defense. The website supports lead generation through multiple contact forms and clear call-to-actions. The firm leverages partnerships with legal award organizations and maintains active social media profiles to enhance credibility. The lack of WHOIS data is unusual but may be due to privacy or technical issues. The firm’s market presence is solid within its niche, with potential growth opportunities through enhanced digital marketing and compliance improvements.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses Google reCAPTCHA to protect contact forms, indicating a baseline security posture. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a visible cookie consent mechanism and security policy page indicates partial privacy compliance. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not present. Overall, the security posture is moderate with room for improvement in headers, privacy compliance, and formal security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and consider adding a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data issue to improve domain trustworthiness and legitimacy perception.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and maintain compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Stevens Caruso
Description
Stevens Caruso is a criminal defense law firm in Virginia specializing in defending individuals against a wide range of criminal charges including DUI, domestic violence, drug charges, theft, murder, and white collar crimes. The firm is led by experienced attorneys Casey R. Stevens and Lisa K. Caruso, both former prosecutors with strong reputations and leadership roles in the Virginia criminal defense community.
Key services
Criminal defense for assault/battery, Domestic violence defense, Drug charges defense, DUI/DWI defense, Larceny/Theft defense, Murder defense, Probation violations defense, Sex crimes defense, Traffic tickets defense, White collar crimes defense
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2, jQuery 3.1.0, FontAwesome, PaperStreet Web Design assets
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on contact forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich for a criminal defense law firm.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual and warrants further investigation.
  3. No visible cookie consent mechanism despite use of tracking and analytics.
  4. Contact forms use Google reCAPTCHA v2 to prevent spam.
  5. Multiple external trusted domains linked including social media and legal award sites.
  6. No security.txt or explicit security policy found.
  7. No signs of adult or inappropriate content.
  8. SSL is enabled and appears properly configured.
  9. No security headers detected in provided data; potential area for improvement.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2, and jQuery 3.1.0. The design is responsive and mobile-friendly with good SEO practices such as meta tags and structured navigation. The site is hosted with HTTPS enabled, but no CMS or hosting provider details were detected. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. The site could benefit from enhanced security headers and a cookie consent mechanism. No CMS or platform was identified, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional and functional user experience with opportunities for security and privacy enhancements.
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 stevenscarusolaw.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 stevenscarusolaw.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.