Data Breach Notification Deadlines
REMOTE · BREACH-NOTIFICATION-DEADLINES.NEROLABS.WORKERS.DEV
Who to notify after a data breach and by what date: all US states, SEC, HIPAA, GDPR, UK. Sourced.
Available components
Last scanned (6 hours ago)
Scores higher than 45% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 18 Oct 2026.
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 3 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability60
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 916 tokens (~305/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management23
- Stability observed for 7 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 18 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 11 Oct 26 56
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 18 Oct 2026 · Probed https://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=nerolabs.workers.dev | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 12 Sept 2026 | 11 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6f7f02a43942bb2aca3c411aec703cf0dc1 |
| SANs: *.nerolabs.workers.dev, nerolabs.workers.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
list_breach_laws ~129
Lists breach notification laws with who is covered, which data types trigger them, encryption exemptions, every notice with its deadline rule and threshold, penalties and the official source. Filter by US state, country (ISO code or name) or scope (us_state, us_federal_sector, country, region). Free.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | – | Optional country code or name, for example "GB", "Germany", "Canada". |
| scope | string | – | Optional: us_state, us_federal_sector, country or region. |
| state | string | – | Optional US state code or name. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_capabilities ~39
Lists coverage (US states, US federal sector rules, countries), the date the data was last checked, and related Nero Labs Rules servers. Free.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
who_to_notify ~610
Works out every data breach notice a company owes and the deadline for each. Give affected (how many people in each US state or country), the data types exposed (for example ssn, drivers_license, payment_card, financial_account, medical, health_insurance, username_password, biometric, passport, dob, email_address), whether the data was encrypted with the key kept safe, the date the breach was discovered, and flags: sec_registrant (US public company), sector (hipaa_covered_entity, hipaa_business_associate, glba_financial, health_app, nydfs_licensee) and role (owner, or service_provider holding data for another company). Returns each notice owed (people affected, state attorneys general, credit bureaus, HHS, SEC Form 8-K, FTC, EU and UK data protection authorities, Canada, Australia) with the deadline as a date where the law sets a fixed period, the deadline rule in words, what the notice must contain, how to send it and the official source, earliest first. Unclear cases give the SAFE answer (notice treated as required) plus what it depends on. Free.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| affected | array | yes | Where the affected people live: [{"state":"CA","count":1200},{"state":"TX","count":300},{"country":"Germany","count":40},{"country":"United Kingdom","count":15},{"country":"Canada","province":"Quebec… |
| data_types | array | – | Personal data exposed, for example ["ssn","drivers_license","payment_card"]. If left out every law is treated as triggered (SAFE). |
| date_discovered | string | – | Date the breach was discovered (or you became aware of it), YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today. Deadlines are counted from it. |
| encrypted | boolean | – | True only if all the exposed data was encrypted and the key was not exposed. Many US state laws then need no notice. Default false. |
| materiality_date | string | – | SEC registrants: date the company decided the incident is material, YYYY-MM-DD. The 8-K is due 4 business days after it. |
| role | string | – | owner (default): the company that owns or licenses the data. service_provider: holds it for another company, which mostly means notifying that company quickly. |
| sec_registrant | boolean | – | True for a company that files reports with the US SEC (listed in the US). Adds Form 8-K Item 1.05. |
| sector | array | – | Sector rules that apply: hipaa_covered_entity, hipaa_business_associate, glba_financial (non-bank financial firms under the FTC Safeguards Rule), health_app (FTC Health Breach Notification Rule), nyd… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server?
Data Breach Notification Deadlines is a hosted endpoint at https://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http nero-engine-breach-notification-deadlines 'https://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp'
What is the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server?
Data Breach Notification Deadlines is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Nero-Engine/breach-notification-deadlines. Who to notify after a data breach and by what date: all US states, SEC, HIPAA, GDPR, UK. Sourced. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://breach-notification-deadlines.nerolabs.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server safe to use?
Data Breach Notification Deadlines scores 59 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server expose?
Data Breach Notification Deadlines exposes 3 tools: list_capabilities, who_to_notify, list_breach_laws. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 778 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Data Breach Notification Deadlines without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Data Breach Notification Deadlines MCP server still maintained?
Data Breach Notification Deadlines is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 18 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.