Skip to main content

Security report for atf.gov

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives · Government · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a U.S. federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice. It focuses on protecting communities from violent crime, illegal firearms and explosives trafficking, arson, terrorism, and diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. The website serves as an official information portal providing regulatory, enforcement, and public safety resources to the general public, law enforcement, and industry stakeholders. The site is well-branded, consistent, and professionally maintained, reflecting its authoritative government status. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 7 with modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and New Relic for monitoring. It integrates with government analytics and search services, and uses HTTPS exclusively, ensuring secure communications. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. However, some compliance gaps exist such as the absence of a cookie consent mechanism and explicit security headers. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates a solid posture with HTTPS, no exposed sensitive data, and use of monitoring tools. However, it lacks published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are recommended best practices for transparency and trust. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy or .gov domain restrictions, but the domain and content strongly indicate legitimacy. Overall, the ATF website is a trustworthy, authoritative government resource with good technical and security foundations. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance and security transparency would further enhance its trustworthiness and user confidence.

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

3 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

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

Keep watching atf.gov

This scan found 18 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
90
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
77

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

ATF holds a critical position as a federal law enforcement agency with a clear mandate to regulate firearms, explosives, arson, and alcohol/tobacco diversion. Its business model is government-funded and service-oriented, targeting law enforcement, industry members, and the general public. The website supports this mission by providing forms, publications, news, and contact resources. The agency maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with the Department of Justice and other government entities. The digital presence reflects a mature, enterprise-level operation with consistent branding and professional content. Growth indicators include active social media engagement and ongoing public communications such as open letters and reform initiatives.

Security posture

The ATF website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, no visible sensitive data leaks, and integration of security monitoring tools like New Relic. However, the absence of explicit security headers and published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies represents areas for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected. The site lacks a cookie consent mechanism, which may impact privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by adopting best practices in transparency and user privacy controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy including incident response contacts.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Enhance HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Regularly update and patch the Drupal CMS and third-party libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Description
ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, illegal firearms trafficking, explosives misuse, arson, terrorism, and illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. It partners with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public through information sharing, training, research, and technology.
Key services
Firearms regulation and enforcement, Explosives regulation and enforcement, Arson investigation, Alcohol and tobacco diversion enforcement, Public safety training and research
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 7 CMS, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, YouTube iframe API, New Relic monitoring, GovDelivery subscription service, Siteimprove analytics, USA.gov search integration
Frameworks
Drupal
Platforms
Web
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 security analytics (New Relic)
  • External scripts loaded over HTTPS

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic, Siteimprove Analytics, DigitalGov Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
New Relic, Siteimprove Analytics, DigitalGov Analytics
Marketing tools
GovDelivery email subscription
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government website with .gov domain
  2. Content focused on law enforcement and regulatory information
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  4. No WHOIS data available due to privacy or .gov domain restrictions
  5. Good use of HTTPS and modern web technologies
  6. No cookie consent banner detected, which may be a compliance gap
  7. Multiple official social media channels linked
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response contact found on main site
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 7, a widely used CMS, supplemented by jQuery and various government analytics and tracking tools. It uses Google Tag Manager and New Relic for performance and error monitoring. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets efficiently and is mobile responsive. The integration with USA.gov search and GovDelivery email subscription services indicates a well-connected government digital ecosystem. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed, but modernization of the CMS platform could reduce technical debt and improve security.
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 atf.gov. 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 atf.gov.

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.