Skip to main content

Security report for ca.gov

State of California · Government · United States

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

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website ca.gov serves as the official portal for the State of California, providing residents and visitors with access to a wide range of government services and information. It holds a strong market position as the authoritative source for California state government resources, featuring key services such as Real ID/license processing, birth certificates, tax refund checking, and business licensing. The site targets a broad audience including California residents, businesses, and visitors seeking official government information. From a technical perspective, the website employs a modern technology stack including ASP.NET, Bootstrap, and Google Tag Manager, hosted likely on Microsoft Azure. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, with consistent branding and professional design. However, performance metrics were not available, limiting a full assessment of speed. Security posture is a significant concern due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of enabled TLS protocols, which critically undermines HTTPS security. While some security headers like Strict-Transport-Security and Content-Security-Policy are present, they are not fully enabled or configured. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies are publicly evident, and cookie consent mechanisms are missing, indicating gaps in privacy compliance. Overall, the site is highly professional and trustworthy in content and business credibility but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS configuration and privacy compliance to enhance security and user trust. Strategic recommendations include immediate SSL certificate installation, enabling modern TLS protocols, implementing cookie consent, and publishing security policies to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of ca.gov. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  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 ca.gov

This scan found 15 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
50
Security headers
55
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
64

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention ca.gov, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
362,894
Employees
535
Customers
360,547
Third parties
1,812
Weak passwords
9%

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for ca.gov.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate ca.gov and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
10
Registered
10
Resolving
10
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-07-05

Masked preview

  • ga•••.govMediumbitsquatting
  • va•••.govMediumreplacement
  • ca•••.govLowaddition

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of ca.gov with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The State of California operates ca.gov as a critical digital gateway for government services, positioning itself as a large enterprise government entity. The portal supports a diverse set of public services and campaigns, reflecting a comprehensive government outreach and service delivery model. The website's ecosystem includes partnerships with various California government subdomains and agencies, enhancing its service breadth. The business model is non-commercial, focused on public service and information dissemination. The site leverages modern web technologies and integrates marketing and analytics tools to monitor user engagement. Growth indicators include active news updates and campaigns, while strategic partnerships with state agencies strengthen its operational scope. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a centralized contact approach via web forms, typical for government portals.

Security posture

The security maturity of ca.gov is currently low due to critical SSL/TLS deficiencies. The lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols expose the site to potential interception and downgrade attacks, severely impacting confidentiality and integrity. Partial implementation of security headers is positive but insufficient without proper HTTPS enforcement. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure programs or incident response contacts limits transparency and responsiveness to security incidents. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. The site would benefit from adopting recognized security frameworks and publishing clear security policies. Overall, the security posture requires immediate remediation to meet modern standards and protect user data effectively.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable secure HTTPS connections.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or higher protocols and configure strong cipher suites to protect data in transit.
  3. Implement a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  4. Publish a formal security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Enable and configure HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload flags to enforce HTTPS.
  6. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve security and performance.
  7. Regularly audit and update security headers and Content Security Policy to mitigate risks.
  8. Enhance contact information availability with verified emails and phone numbers for support and incident reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on ASP.NET technology, leveraging Bootstrap for responsive design and Google Tag Manager for analytics. Hosting appears to be on Microsoft Azure, supported by Cloudflare DNS services. The site demonstrates good accessibility and SEO optimization with proper meta tags and structured navigation. However, performance data is unavailable, limiting assessment of load times. The absence of a CMS suggests a custom or proprietary content management approach. The technical stack is modern but security implementation is lacking, particularly in SSL/TLS configuration. Opportunities exist to modernize security infrastructure and improve privacy compliance. The site uses external CDNs for fonts and scripts, which is standard practice. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable government portal but requires security enhancements.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ca.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 ca.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.