Skip to main content

Security report for asbestossafety.gov.au

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Authority · Government · Australia

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Authority operates as an Australian government agency dedicated to asbestos and silica safety awareness, research, and regulatory coordination. The website serves as a comprehensive resource for various stakeholders including DIY renovators, tradespeople, importers, and real estate agents, providing authoritative information and guidance on asbestos risks, legal requirements, and safety measures. The agency holds a strong national position as the lead body for asbestos safety and eradication efforts in Australia. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 with modern web technologies such as Bootstrap and FontAwesome, ensuring a responsive and accessible user experience. Integration with Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel indicates moderate user tracking for analytics and marketing purposes. The site demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices, with clear navigation and professional design. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers and a published security or incident response policy, which are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is privacy protected but consistent with legitimate government use, supporting the site's trustworthiness. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and good technical implementation. Strategic enhancements in privacy compliance and security transparency would further strengthen its posture.

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

4 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 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching asbestossafety.gov.au

This scan found 20 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
72
Security headers
55
Email security
100
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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 agency occupies a unique niche as a government entity focused on public health and safety related to asbestos and silica. Its business model revolves around public education, regulatory coordination, and research leadership. The target audience is broad, encompassing individuals, businesses, and government bodies involved in asbestos management. The website's content and outreach efforts, including social media channels, support awareness and compliance. The agency's market position is authoritative and essential within the Australian government sector. No commercial revenue streams or subsidiaries are evident, consistent with its public service mandate.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive information. The absence of security headers and a public incident response policy suggests room for maturity in defense-in-depth and transparency. The use of third-party analytics and tracking pixels is moderate and should be balanced with privacy considerations. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected in the content. Overall, the security posture aligns with a government agency's baseline requirements but could benefit from enhanced security controls and published policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security policy and incident response plan on the website to increase transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance and user trust.
  4. Consider creating and publishing a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  5. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and maintain compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Authority
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Authority
Description
Provides important asbestos awareness and safety information for DIY renovators, tradespeople, importers, real estate agents and more. Coordinates Australia's national action on asbestos safety and eradication.
Key services
Asbestos safety information, Asbestos and silica safety research, National strategic planning, Public awareness campaigns, Regulatory coordination
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery, FontAwesome, Bootstrap Barrio theme, Google Translate, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Frameworks
Drupal CMS, Bootstrap CSS framework
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and privacy meta tags

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a government agency site focused on asbestos and silica safety in Australia.
  2. Content is comprehensive, well-structured, and professionally presented.
  3. No signs of malicious content or security issues detected.
  4. WHOIS data is privacy protected but consistent with legitimate government use.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  6. Social media presence on major platforms enhances trust and outreach.
  7. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy found, which could be improved.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published on the site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform with Bootstrap for responsive design and FontAwesome for icons. It uses jQuery and integrates Google Translate for multilingual support. Analytics and marketing tools include Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate, likely due to rich media content and third-party scripts. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available from the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly experience.
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 asbestossafety.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 asbestossafety.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.