Skip to main content

Security report for abf.gov.au

Australian Border Force · Government · Australia

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Australian Border Force (ABF) website serves as the official government portal for Australia's border protection and customs enforcement agency under the Department of Home Affairs. The site provides comprehensive information and services related to border security, trade facilitation, immigration detention, and licensing. It targets a broad audience including travelers, importers, exporters, customs brokers, and the general public. The ABF maintains a strong market position as a national government authority with a clear mission to protect Australia's borders and enable legitimate travel and trade. Technically, the website is built on Microsoft SharePoint, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate. Security posture is robust with enforced HTTPS and standard security headers, though explicit Content-Security-Policy headers and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent. Privacy policies are comprehensive but lack explicit cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the ABF website is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, reflecting its role as a government entity. The absence of WHOIS data is consistent with Australian government domain privacy policies and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing incident response contacts, and improving privacy consent mechanisms to further strengthen trust and compliance.

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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

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

Keep watching abf.gov.au

This scan found 17 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
85
Security headers
65
Email security
83
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
78

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 Australian Border Force operates as an essential government entity within the Department of Home Affairs, focusing on border security and customs enforcement. Its business model is service-oriented, providing regulatory oversight, enforcement, and public information. The agency benefits from strong government backing, a clear mandate, and a broad stakeholder ecosystem including travelers, businesses, and other government agencies. The website's integration with related government domains and official social media channels supports a cohesive partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators include ongoing updates to immigration and trade policies, as well as public engagement through news and alerts. The ABF's competitive advantage lies in its authoritative position and comprehensive service offerings in border management.

Security posture

The ABF website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, use of Google Tag Manager for controlled analytics, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. Security headers are partially implemented, but the lack of an explicit Content-Security-Policy header and absence of a security.txt file or public vulnerability disclosure policy represent areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or malicious indicators were detected in the site content or scripts. The site does not publicly disclose incident response contacts, which could enhance transparency and readiness. Overall, the security culture appears strong, aligned with government standards, but could benefit from enhanced communication and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a comprehensive Content-Security-Policy header to mitigate cross-site scripting and related attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  3. Enhance cookie consent mechanisms to comply with privacy best practices and improve user transparency.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information on the website to improve security communication.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and maintain compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Australian Border Force
Description
Our mission is to protect Australia’s border and enable legitimate travel and trade.
Key services
Border protection, Customs enforcement, Immigration detention, Trade facilitation, Licensing and regulatory compliance, Public information and support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Microsoft SharePoint, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Slick Carousel
Frameworks
SharePoint Framework
Platforms
Microsoft SharePoint
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for analytics
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a government portal for Australian Border Force under Department of Home Affairs.
  2. Content is comprehensive, well-structured, and professionally presented.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable due to policy restrictions but domain is consistent with official government use.
  5. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and standard security practices.
  6. Privacy and cookie policies are present but could improve consent mechanisms.
  7. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed; contact is via web form.
  8. Social media presence is official and consistent with government branding.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Microsoft SharePoint, a robust enterprise content management platform, indicating a stable and scalable infrastructure. The use of modern JavaScript libraries and Google Tag Manager reflects a contemporary tech stack supporting analytics and user interaction. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by SharePoint's inherent complexity and external script loading. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata including Open Graph tags and Twitter cards. Technical risks are minimal, with no outdated or vulnerable libraries detected. Opportunities exist to modernize security headers and enhance privacy controls to align with evolving standards.
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 abf.gov.au. 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 abf.gov.au.

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.