Skip to main content

Security report for wrightclosebarger.com

Wright Close & Barger, LLP · Other · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Wright Close & Barger, LLP is a specialized Texas law firm focusing on complex civil litigation, including trial and appellate work. The firm has over 20 years of experience and is recognized for its appellate expertise, serving clients across Texas in areas such as personal injury, insurance, commercial disputes, intellectual property, and oil and gas. The website presents a professional image with clear branding and contact information, targeting legal clients seeking high-quality representation. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the PaperStreet theme and incorporates modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Slick Carousel, and Lozad for lazy loading. It uses Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking and SEO is enhanced with the Yoast SEO plugin. Hosting appears to be via WP Engine, a reputable managed WordPress host. The site is mobile optimized and performs moderately well, though accessibility features are basic. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and does not expose sensitive data or vulnerable libraries. However, it lacks important security headers and does not display cookie consent or privacy banners, which may impact compliance with privacy regulations. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable concern, reducing trust in domain legitimacy despite the professional website content. Overall, the site is a credible and professional legal services platform with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security hardening. The missing WHOIS data warrants further investigation to confirm domain ownership and legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

9 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 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

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

Keep watching wrightclosebarger.com

This scan found 27 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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 firm operates in the legal services sector, focusing on appellate and trial litigation in Texas. Its competitive advantage lies in extensive appellate experience and a strong track record in complex civil cases. The business model is service-oriented, targeting clients needing expert legal representation. Revenue streams likely come from legal fees and retainers. The firm’s market position is solid within its niche, supported by recognized certifications such as Chambers 2025. The website indicates a small-sized firm with a focused client base. Partnerships with digital marketing providers like PaperStreet and Law Firm Essentials suggest a strategic approach to online presence. Growth indicators include a well-maintained website and active content updates. No subsidiaries or parent companies are indicated.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and no visible sensitive data leaks. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. Absence of cookie consent and privacy compliance mechanisms indicates potential GDPR and privacy regulation gaps. No incident response or security policy information is published, limiting transparency. The WHOIS data absence raises questions about domain registration legitimacy, which could be a risk factor. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a professional site but requires enhancements to meet best practices and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner and update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish terms of service and security policy pages to improve transparency and compliance.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data issue to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Establish an incident response contact channel and consider appointing a Data Protection Officer to strengthen security culture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Wright Close & Barger, LLP
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Wright Close & Barger, LLP
Description
Wright Close & Barger, LLP is a Texas-based law firm specializing in complex civil litigation, including catastrophic personal injury, insurance coverage, commercial disputes, intellectual property, oil and gas, and product defects. They have extensive trial and appellate experience and have handled appeals before various federal and state courts.
Key services
Trial representation, Appellate representation, Complex civil litigation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Analytics, Yoast SEO, Slick Carousel, Lozad.js
Frameworks
PaperStreet theme
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Professional law firm website with clear focus on Texas appellate and trial litigation.
  2. No visible forms collecting personal data on homepage; contact likely via phone or contact page.
  3. No privacy or cookie consent banner detected, which may be a compliance gap.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  5. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual and reduces domain trust score.
  6. No security headers detected in provided data; opportunity for improvement.
  7. No visible social media links on homepage.
  8. Clear contact phone number and physical address provided.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using a premium theme from PaperStreet, integrating several JavaScript libraries for UI enhancements and lazy loading. SEO is managed via Yoast SEO plugin, and analytics are implemented through Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. Hosting is likely provided by WP Engine, ensuring reliable performance. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity. However, accessibility features are basic and could be improved. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Performance is moderate, with opportunities to optimize loading times further. Security configurations lack some recommended HTTP headers, which should be addressed to reduce risk.
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 wrightclosebarger.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 wrightclosebarger.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.