Skip to main content

Security report for az.gov

State of Arizona · Government · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website az.gov serves as the official portal for the State of Arizona, providing residents, businesses, and visitors with access to government services, resources, and information. It is positioned as a key authoritative source for state-related content, including agency directories, business resources, and citizen services. The site targets a broad audience including residents, government employees, and visitors, operating under a government service model with a long-established domain since 1999. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 7 CMS and leverages common web technologies such as jQuery and Google Analytics for tracking. Hosting appears to be managed via Amazon AWS infrastructure. While the site is mobile-optimized and accessible at a basic level, performance is moderate and SEO practices are basic. The site lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC is not enabled, which are areas for improvement. From a security perspective, the site benefits from HTTPS and domain transfer protections, but lacks visible security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Privacy compliance is limited, with no clear cookie consent mechanism and only a basic privacy policy related to accessibility. The site is trustworthy as an official government domain but could enhance transparency and security posture. Overall, az.gov is a functional and authoritative government website with room for technical and security enhancements to improve user trust, privacy compliance, and resilience against threats.

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

8 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 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

    • 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 az.gov

This scan found 23 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
47
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
65

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

Az.gov operates as a critical government portal for the State of Arizona, serving a large and diverse user base. Its market position is strong as the official state website, providing essential services such as voter registration, business management resources, and citizen information. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on public sector information dissemination rather than commercial revenue. The site integrates with multiple partner government domains and external authoritative resources, enhancing its ecosystem. Growth indicators include a long domain history and consistent content updates. However, the lack of detailed business contact information and limited privacy disclosures suggest a focus on information provision rather than direct user engagement or commercial activities.

Security posture

The security posture of az.gov is moderate. The site enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces its defense-in-depth. There is no public incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which limits transparency and preparedness communication. The use of third-party analytics introduces moderate tracking but no explicit cookie consent mechanism was found, indicating partial privacy compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security controls and clearer security policies to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to secure DNS infrastructure and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish explicit privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  4. Provide clear incident response and vulnerability disclosure contacts to enhance transparency.
  5. Regularly update CMS and libraries to mitigate risks from outdated software.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
State of Arizona
Description
Official website of the State of Arizona providing information and services for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Key services
Agency Directory, Service Directory, Register to Vote, Business Resources, Employment Resources, Citizen Resources
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 7, jQuery, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, AWS DNS
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ServerTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official state government website with comprehensive navigation and service directories.
  2. Uses Drupal 7 CMS with multiple JavaScript libraries and Google Analytics for tracking.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages found, but accessibility policy is present.
  4. No visible security headers in HTML content; DNSSEC not enabled.
  5. No contact phone numbers explicitly listed; one webmaster email found.
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information publicly available.
  7. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  8. Website design and content are basic but functional and consistent with government standards.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Drupal 7 CMS, which is an older but still supported platform. The tech stack includes jQuery and Google Analytics for user tracking. Hosting is via AWS DNS services, indicating a reliable infrastructure. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. The site lacks advanced SEO meta tags and structured data such as JSON-LD or Open Graph tags were not detected. JavaScript and CSS assets are loaded from the site domain, indicating centralized resource management. There is potential technical debt due to the use of Drupal 7 and missing modern security headers. Opportunities exist to modernize the tech stack, improve performance, and enhance SEO and accessibility.
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 az.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 az.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.