Skip to main content

Security report for azregents.edu

Arizona Board of Regents · Education · United States

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 3 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Arizona Board of Regents website serves as the official online presence for the state-level governing body overseeing Arizona's public university system, including Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona. The site provides comprehensive information about governance, policies, programs, scholarships, and public meetings, targeting students, educators, policymakers, and the general public interested in higher education in Arizona. The business model is governmental oversight and coordination, positioning the Board as a key educational authority in the state. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 with modern front-end frameworks such as Bootstrap 5 and Font Awesome 6, ensuring a responsive and accessible user experience. It integrates Google Analytics for user tracking and AddToAny for social sharing. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, clear navigation, and professional design, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and follows standard Drupal security practices, but lacks some advanced security headers and published security policies. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable, which is unusual but may be due to .edu domain registry policies. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but could improve transparency and compliance. The overall risk assessment is low, with recommendations to enhance security headers, implement cookie consent, publish security and incident response policies, and clarify domain registration information to 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

8 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
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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. 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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 25 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

  4. 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

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

Keep watching azregents.edu

This scan found 24 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
57
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
53
Average
51
After the cap
49

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 Board of Regents holds a critical role in Arizona's higher education ecosystem, governing three major public universities. Its market position is authoritative within the state education sector, with a focus on policy, funding, and program oversight. The Board's partnerships with universities and educational initiatives like FAFSA and scholarship programs indicate a broad stakeholder network. Revenue streams are primarily governmental funding and grants. The target customers include students, educators, and policymakers. Growth indicators include expanding programs and research grants. The Board maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with universities and educational organizations, supporting statewide educational goals.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible sensitive data leaks. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of published security policies or incident response contacts represent gaps. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files were found, limiting transparency for security researchers. Privacy compliance is partial, lacking cookie consent mechanisms. The site would benefit from enhanced security controls and clearer communication of security practices to improve incident response readiness and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Clarify domain WHOIS information or provide official documentation to address the missing WHOIS data and strengthen trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Arizona Board of Regents
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Arizona Board of Regents
Description
The Arizona Board of Regents oversees the public university system in Arizona, including Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona. It focuses on increasing postsecondary access and attainment for Arizona students, addressing societal challenges, and improving quality, affordability, and efficiency in higher education.
Key services
University system governance, Policy development, Scholarship and financial aid programs, Public meetings and transparency, Research grant approvals
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Bootstrap 5.2.3, Font Awesome 6, Google Analytics, AddToAny sharing
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens (Drupal standard)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
AddToAny sharing
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to Arizona higher education governance
  3. No privacy or cookie consent banner detected, which may be a compliance gap
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable, which is unusual but not uncommon for .edu domains
  5. Website uses modern technologies and frameworks with good mobile optimization
  6. Social media presence is strong with official accounts linked
  7. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts published
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern and widely supported CMS platform, Drupal 10, combined with Bootstrap 5 for responsive design and Font Awesome 6 for iconography. It uses Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and AddToAny for social sharing. The site loads external resources from reputable CDNs, ensuring performance and reliability. Mobile optimization and accessibility features are well implemented. Performance is moderate, with no major issues detected. Technical debt appears low, but opportunities exist to improve security headers and privacy compliance. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified from the content.
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 azregents.edu. 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 azregents.edu.

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.