Skip to main content

Security report for susmangodfrey.com

Susman Godfrey L.L.P. · Other · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and GDPR outside view.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

Susman Godfrey L.L.P. is a premier litigation law firm specializing in complex and high-stakes legal cases. The firm is highly ranked nationally, holding the Vault #1 litigation boutique position in the US for over a decade. Their services focus on trial law, class actions, privacy litigation, business disputes, arbitration, and pro bono work, targeting corporations, plaintiffs, and defendants involved in litigation. The website reflects a mature and professional legal services business with a strong market presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern technologies such as jQuery, Algolia Search for enhanced search functionality, and Google Analytics for visitor insights. The site is well optimized for SEO, mobile responsive, and fast loading, indicating a high level of digital maturity. Privacy compliance is robust with clear privacy and cookie policies and a consent mechanism. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and employs cookie consent blocking for analytics scripts. However, no explicit security headers were detected in the HTML source, and no incident response or security policy pages were found. The WHOIS data is unavailable, which slightly reduces transparency but is common for professional firms protecting registrant privacy. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional headers and published security policies. The overall risk assessment is low, with the main recommendation being to enhance security headers and incident response visibility. The website is trustworthy, professional, and compliant with privacy regulations, making it suitable for its target audience and business model.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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

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

Keep watching susmangodfrey.com

This scan found 15 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
54
Security headers
95
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
82

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

Susman Godfrey operates as a specialized litigation boutique law firm with a strong competitive advantage in trial law and complex cases. Their market positioning as Vault’s #1 litigation boutique for over a decade signals a dominant presence in the US legal market. The firm’s business model revolves around high-value litigation services, targeting corporate clients and plaintiffs in major lawsuits. Revenue streams likely come from legal fees in high-stakes cases and arbitration. The firm maintains a strong partnership ecosystem evident from its social media presence and high-profile case wins. Growth indicators include recent large settlements and jury verdicts highlighted on the website. The firm’s operations emphasize expertise, bold strategies, and exceptional courtroom talent, reinforcing its premium market positioning.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism that blocks analytics scripts until consent is given, indicating GDPR compliance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML source. However, the absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security is a gap that could be addressed to enhance protection against common web attacks. No dedicated security policy or incident response contact information is published, which could limit transparency in case of security incidents. Overall, the security maturity is good but can be improved by implementing recommended headers and publishing security-related policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website against attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility, including verified company emails and phone numbers, to improve user trust and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
Description
Susman Godfrey is a premier litigation firm. Our firm offers unparalleled expertise in complex cases with a proven track record of success.
Key services
complex litigation, trial law, class actions, privacy litigation, business disputes, arbitration, pro bono legal services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Algolia Search, Google Analytics, Yoast SEO, Flickity Carousel, WordPress
Frameworks
WordPress, Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Analytics with consent blocking

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google AdWords
Marketing tools
Algolia Search
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Professional legal services firm with strong market positioning
  3. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent management
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage HTML
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices
  6. No visible security headers detected in HTML source
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, reducing transparency but not necessarily indicating risk
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Algolia Search for enhanced search capabilities, and Google Analytics for visitor tracking. The site uses the Yoast SEO plugin for optimization and Flickity for carousel functionality. Performance is fast with optimized images and caching (autoptimize). The site is mobile responsive and accessible with skip links and ARIA labels. No hosting provider information was detected from the HTML source. The technical implementation is robust with good SEO and user experience, though security headers are missing which is a technical risk. The site uses Google Tag Manager and analytics scripts with consent blocking, indicating good privacy practices. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and performant web presence.
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 susmangodfrey.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 susmangodfrey.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.