Skip to main content

Security report for titleforward.com

Title Forward · Real Estate · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Title Forward is a specialized title and settlement services company operating primarily in the United States, founded in 2012. The company leverages technology combined with traditional expertise to provide title insurance and settlement services across multiple states. Their market position is that of a customer-focused, technology-enabled service provider offering competitive pricing and personal service. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand with clear navigation and relevant content targeted at homebuyers and homeowners. Technically, the site uses modern frameworks such as React and is hosted on AWS infrastructure with CDN support, ensuring moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, a critical security gap exists due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which significantly impacts the security posture. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the business credibility is strong, supported by partner logos and social media presence, but the security weaknesses require urgent remediation.

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

6 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 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 titleforward.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
50
Security headers
45
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
59

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 company operates in the real estate sector, focusing on title insurance and settlement services. Its business model centers on combining technology with traditional service to improve customer experience and convenience. The presence of underwriting partners like First American and Fidelity enhances credibility and market trust. The company targets residential real estate transactions in multiple US states, indicating a medium-sized operation with regional reach. The use of subsidiary entities for different states suggests a structured corporate setup. The website's integration with payment processing partners like Earnnest indicates a streamlined customer journey. The company maintains active social media channels, enhancing its marketing and customer engagement efforts.

Security posture

The website's security posture is currently weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS enforcement, exposing users to potential data interception risks. The absence of HSTS and modern TLS protocols further weakens transport security. While security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options are present, critical best practices such as OCSP stapling and session resumption are missing. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are found, indicating limited transparency in security management. The use of secure cookies with appropriate flags is a positive aspect. Overall, the site requires immediate SSL deployment and enhancement of TLS configurations to meet basic security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  3. Upgrade TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols and disable older versions.
  4. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve security and performance.
  5. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Forward Settlement Solutions dba Title Forward
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React framework and utilizes LABjs for JavaScript loading management. Hosting is on AWS infrastructure with CloudFront CDN for content delivery, ensuring scalability and moderate performance. The site uses OneTrust for cookie consent management, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. DNS records show multiple A records hosted on AWS IPs and MX records pointing to Google mail servers, reflecting professional email handling. The site includes multiple CSS and JS bundles loaded from a Redfin CDN, indicating a shared or related infrastructure. Performance metrics are not explicitly provided but inferred as moderate. Accessibility and SEO are addressed with proper meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. However, the lack of SSL and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical risk. No CMS is detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary content management solution.
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 titleforward.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 titleforward.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.