State of California · Government · United States
Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.
The website www.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 is positioned as an authoritative and trusted source for state-related resources, including services like Real ID/license applications, birth certificates, tax refunds, and business permits. The site targets a broad audience including California residents, businesses, and visitors seeking official state information. Technically, the site employs a modern and well-structured web infrastructure, utilizing Google Tag Manager and Analytics for tracking, a state web template framework, and optimized CSS and JavaScript resources. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with a fast performance profile. The presence of accessibility certification and consistent branding further enhance its digital maturity. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses integrity attributes on critical resources, indicating good security hygiene. However, explicit security headers are not visible in the provided data, and no public security policy or incident response contacts are found. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism and vulnerability disclosure program are areas for improvement. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from enhanced transparency and additional security controls. The domain is a .gov domain for California, which inherently carries high trust and legitimacy. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, which is typical for government domains. No suspicious patterns or vulnerabilities were detected. The site is safe for general audiences with no adult or questionable content. Strategic recommendations include adding explicit security headers, publishing security policies, implementing cookie consent, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure program to further strengthen trust and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
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.
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
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
This scan found 18 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention ca.gov, from OffSeq Breach.
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.
Domains that imitate ca.gov and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.
Last checked 2026-07-05
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.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with ca.gov. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review ca.gov.