Skip to main content

Security report for azarts.gov

Arizona Commission on the Arts · Government · United States

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Arizona Commission on the Arts is a state government agency dedicated to supporting and promoting the arts across Arizona. It provides grants, programs, and services to artists, arts organizations, schools, and communities to foster cultural development and arts education. The agency holds a strong market position as the official state arts agency with a clear mission to enhance quality of life and economic growth through the arts. The website reflects this mission with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and active community engagement through events and social media. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and SEO plugins like Yoast. It is hosted on Google Cloud infrastructure, uses HTTPS, and integrates analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Siteimprove. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and accessibility features, though some improvements in cookie consent and DNS security could be made. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections but lacks DNSSEC and explicit public security policies or incident response contacts. No critical vulnerabilities or blocking mechanisms were detected. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. The WHOIS data shows a long-established domain with privacy protection justified for a government entity. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained with minor areas for improvement in privacy compliance and DNS security. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing cookie consent, publishing security policies, and adding vulnerability disclosure information to enhance 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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  2. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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';…

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

Keep watching azarts.gov

This scan found 31 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
53
Average
44

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 · found on this site
  • 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 Arizona Commission on the Arts operates as a government entity focused on arts funding and education. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status as the state arts agency, providing authoritative grants and programs. Revenue streams are primarily government appropriations, as evidenced by recent budget announcements. The target customers include artists, arts organizations, educators, and the general public interested in arts and culture. The agency demonstrates growth through community engagement initiatives and strategic planning tours. Partnerships with local arts groups and educational institutions are evident. The organization's operations are transparent with accessible contact information and active social media presence, supporting its mission and market position.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections in place. However, the absence of DNSSEC and lack of publicly available security or incident response policies indicate room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The site uses secure forms and does not show signs of common web vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is partial, lacking cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR-specific disclosures. Incident response readiness is not publicly documented. Overall, the security posture is solid for a government site but could be enhanced by adopting additional DNS security measures and publishing clear security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish explicit security and incident response policies on the website for transparency.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly review and update privacy policies to reflect current data collection and retention practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Arizona Commission on the Arts
Registration number
Chamber of Commerce
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Arizona Commission on the Arts
Description
An agency of the State of Arizona, the Arizona Commission on the Arts provides grants, programs, services and leadership in support of the arts and arts learning programs. In partnership with arts organizations, schools, festivals and individual artists, they celebrate Arizona’s diverse communities and rich cultural traditions, inspire creativity, grow local economies and enhance quality of life for all Arizonans.
Key services
Grant awarding, Arts education programs, Community engagement, Arts learning resources, Artist support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Analytics, Yoast SEO, WordPress, Elementor, Custom Facebook Feed plugin, Instagram Feed plugin, YouTube Embed Plus Pro
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of serverTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Siteimprove Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Siteimprove Analytics
Marketing tools
MonsterInsights (Google Analytics plugin)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a state government agency site with official .gov domain
  2. Content is rich and relevant to arts and culture in Arizona
  3. Good use of structured data and SEO best practices
  4. No visible security or privacy policy gaps except missing cookie consent
  5. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  6. Social media integration is present and active
  7. WHOIS data is privacy protected but consistent with government use
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It integrates multiple plugins for SEO, analytics, social media feeds, and video embedding, indicating a well-rounded technical infrastructure. Hosting is provided via Google Cloud DNS services, ensuring reliable uptime and performance. The site shows moderate loading performance with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. Structured data and Open Graph tags are properly implemented for SEO and social sharing. Technical risks include the lack of DNSSEC and potential privacy compliance gaps. Overall, the technical setup supports the business goals effectively with opportunities for modernization in security and privacy features.
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 azarts.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 azarts.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.