Skip to main content

Security report for bie.edu

Bureau of Indian Education · Government · United States

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) operates as a federal government bureau under the U.S. Department of the Interior, providing culturally relevant, high-quality educational opportunities to Native American tribes and Alaska Native villages. The website serves a broad audience including students, educators, families, tribal leaders, and partners, offering resources ranging from academic success programs to school operations and behavioral health. The site is well-branded, professionally designed, and clearly communicates its mission and services. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10 and leverages the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) for accessibility and responsive design. It integrates modern analytics and tracking tools such as Microsoft Clarity and Google Tag Manager, ensuring moderate user tracking while maintaining privacy compliance. The website demonstrates good SEO and accessibility practices, with structured data enhancing search engine understanding. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and follows several best practices, though explicit security headers and incident response contacts are not visible. The absence of WHOIS data is unusual but the domain's .edu TLD and government affiliation support legitimacy. No WAF or blocking mechanisms were detected, and no vulnerabilities were found in the visible content. Overall, the BIE website is a trustworthy, professional government resource with strong content quality and technical implementation. Strategic improvements include adding explicit cookie consent, publishing security policies and incident response contacts, and verifying domain registration details 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching bie.edu

This scan found 19 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
52
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
85
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

BIE holds a strong market position as a federal government entity focused on Native American education. Its business model centers on providing educational services, managing schools, and supporting tribal communities. The website reflects a large organizational size with extensive services and partnerships, including links to tribal colleges and government agencies. The presence of strategic initiatives and detailed resource sections indicates a mature operational structure. The partnership ecosystem includes official government domains and educational institutions, reinforcing credibility and outreach. Growth indicators include recent news articles and strategic transformation plans. The site’s clear segmentation of audiences and resources supports targeted engagement and service delivery.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive data. Use of modern CMS and frameworks reduces risk from outdated software. However, the lack of explicit security headers and incident response information limits transparency and preparedness. Tracking scripts are present but appear standard and non-invasive. The missing WHOIS data is a concern but mitigated by the .edu domain and government affiliation. No signs of malware, phishing, or vulnerabilities were detected. Compliance with privacy regulations is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by publishing security policies and improving header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply fully with privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA.
  3. Publish clear incident response and security contact information on the website to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure no vulnerabilities or privacy issues.
  5. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data to confirm domain registration legitimacy and enhance trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Bureau of Indian Education
Description
The mission of Bureau of Indian Education is to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being, in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities.
Key services
Education programs, School operations, Grants management, Human resources, Student and family resources, Behavioral health and wellness
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Custom Search Engine, Microsoft Clarity
Frameworks
US Web Design System (USWDS)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with no visible vulnerabilities

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Google Custom Search Engine
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government educational website with strong branding and content
  2. No WHOIS data available, domain registration status unclear
  3. No WAF or blocking detected, full content accessible
  4. Good use of structured data and metadata for SEO and accessibility
  5. Lacks explicit cookie consent mechanism
  6. No visible incident response or security contact information
  7. Uses modern CMS (Drupal 10) and USWDS framework
  8. Includes multiple official social media and partner links
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and secure CMS, and uses the U.S. Web Design System for consistent, accessible design. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Clarity for analytics and user behavior tracking. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata and structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine indexing. Performance is moderate, likely due to rich media content and multiple scripts. Hosting details are not explicit, but the presence of government branding suggests hosting on federal infrastructure or trusted providers. Technical risks are low, but improvements in security headers and privacy mechanisms are recommended to reduce potential attack surfaces and compliance gaps.
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 bie.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 bie.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.