Skip to main content

Security report for uks.com

Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. · Other · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. is a well-established Connecticut law firm with a strong regional presence and affiliations that extend its reach nationally and internationally. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including business and corporate law, litigation, real estate, technology, and governmental affairs. Their website reflects a professional and client-focused approach, targeting businesses and individuals seeking legal expertise in Connecticut and beyond. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and Google Analytics, ensuring a responsive and user-friendly experience. While performance is moderate and mobile optimization is good, there is room for improvement in accessibility and security headers implementation. The site uses asynchronous loading for analytics and marketing scripts, indicating a focus on performance and tracking. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and integrates standard analytics and marketing tools but lacks visible security headers and cookie consent mechanisms, which are important for compliance and protection. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable concern, potentially impacting trustworthiness. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are provided, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. Overall, the website is professional and credible but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security best practices, and domain registration transparency to strengthen its security posture and user trust.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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"

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

Keep watching uks.com

This scan found 23 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
54

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 positions itself as a major Connecticut law firm with over fifty years of service, leveraging its MERITAS membership and government affairs affiliation to broaden its service offerings. Its business model focuses on comprehensive legal services across multiple industries, targeting corporate clients and individuals. The website content and social media presence support a credible and established market position. The firm appears to invest in digital marketing and client engagement through its online presence and analytics tools. Growth indicators include diversified service lines and strategic partnerships. The absence of detailed financial or registration data limits deeper business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The site uses HTTPS and standard Google tracking technologies but lacks advanced security headers and explicit privacy or security policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, indicating potential gaps in security governance and transparency. The missing WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration legitimacy, which could be a risk factor. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries, but the lack of cookie consent and security headers suggests room for improvement in compliance and defense-in-depth strategies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
Description
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. is a major Connecticut law firm with three offices throughout the State of Connecticut. The firm has over fifty years of client service, offering comprehensive legal practice at the center of law, business, and politics in Connecticut. It is a member of MERITAS™ and affiliated with FOCUS Government Affairs @ UKS, LLC.
Key services
Business & Corporate Services, Litigation, Real Estate, Environmental & Energy, Technology and Venture Capital, Governmental Affairs
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.2.2, Modernizr 2.8.3, Bootstrap CSS and JS, Font Awesome 4.3.0, Ionicons 2.0.1, Google Fonts (Montserrat, Open Sans), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, jQuery Validate
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by canonical URL https://www.uks.com/)
  • Google Tag Manager and Analytics scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Google Ads viewthrough conversion pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to a law firm.
  3. No privacy or cookie consent banners detected, which may be a compliance gap.
  4. WHOIS data is missing, which reduces trust in domain registration transparency.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools is evident.
  6. Contact information is clearly provided including email and phone.
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn and Twitter supports business credibility.
  8. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts found on site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a solid foundation using Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It leverages Google Fonts and icon libraries for visual appeal. Analytics and marketing scripts are loaded asynchronously to optimize performance. The site structure is clear with well-organized navigation and internal linking. However, there is no detected CMS, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in caching and resource optimization. Accessibility is basic, with some ARIA or semantic improvements possible. The absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates technical debt in security and compliance areas.
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 uks.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 uks.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.