Skip to main content

Security report for taxpackagesupport.com

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP · Finance · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TaxPackageSupport.com is a professional service portal operated by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) providing tax information and support specifically for investors in publicly traded partnerships. The platform offers user registration, secure login, and access to K-1 tax documents, with an optional premium service for enhanced features such as bulk downloads and tracking. The site is clearly branded with PwC identity and targets a niche financial audience requiring specialized tax document access. Technically, the site uses ASP.NET MVC framework, JavaScript libraries including jQuery and FontAwesome, and integrates Microsoft Application Insights for telemetry and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection. However, the site suffers from a lack of a valid SSL certificate and modern TLS protocols, resulting in a weak security posture. Privacy and terms of service policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but no explicit security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 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

    • 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 taxpackagesupport.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. 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
60

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 website serves as a specialized tax document gateway for investors in publicly traded partnerships, leveraging PwC's brand and expertise. Its business model includes free access with registration and a paid premium tier offering additional convenience features. The platform supports a broad range of partnerships primarily in the finance and energy sectors, as evidenced by the extensive entity list with contact phone numbers. The site’s integration with Microsoft Application Insights indicates a focus on monitoring and improving user experience. The absence of direct company contact emails and reliance on phone numbers per partnership suggests a decentralized support approach. The site’s market position is strong within its niche due to PwC’s reputation, but technical and security shortcomings could impact user confidence and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The security posture of taxpackagesupport.com is currently weak. The site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No HTTP security headers are present, and HSTS is not enabled, increasing vulnerability to man-in-the-middle attacks. While forms implement CSRF tokens and Google reCAPTCHA is used to mitigate automated abuse, the absence of HTTPS undermines these protections. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency and preparedness. The site should prioritize obtaining a valid SSL certificate, enabling modern TLS, and implementing security headers to meet industry best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 protocols and disable insecure protocols to secure data in transit.
  3. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Optimize site performance to reduce load times and improve user experience, including mobile responsiveness enhancements.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on an ASP.NET MVC framework with client-side JavaScript libraries including jQuery and FontAwesome. It uses Microsoft Application Insights for telemetry and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. The site has a large page size (343 KB) and slow load time (~17.7 seconds), indicating potential performance bottlenecks. No CMS is detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit. The site includes anti-clickjacking scripts and CSRF tokens in forms, indicating some security awareness. However, the lack of SSL/TLS and security headers represents significant technical debt. The site’s SEO and accessibility features are basic but functional. Modernization opportunities include SSL deployment, performance optimization, and enhanced mobile support.
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 taxpackagesupport.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 taxpackagesupport.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.