Skip to main content

Security report for cio.gov

Federal Chief Information Officers Council · Government · United States

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website www.cio.gov serves as the official online presence of the Federal Chief Information Officers Council, a U.S. government entity focused on improving IT practices across federal agencies. It provides authoritative resources including policies, guides, and news relevant to federal IT leadership. The site targets government IT professionals and stakeholders, positioning itself as a trusted source for federal IT governance and management. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies such as the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS), jQuery, and integrates Google Analytics and the Digital Analytics Program for user tracking. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and uses HTTPS to secure communications. Security posture is strong with encrypted connections and anonymized analytics, though it lacks some advanced security headers and explicit incident response information. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism despite tracking scripts. Overall, the site is highly trustworthy, consistent with official government branding and content, and shows no signs of malicious activity or suspicious behavior.

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

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 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';…

  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 cio.gov

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.

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
95
Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
78

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

The CIO Council operates as an essential government entity providing policy coordination and advisory services to federal IT leaders. Its business model revolves around governance, resource sharing, and policy dissemination rather than commercial activities. The website reflects a medium-sized government operation with a clear focus on federal IT sectors. It maintains partnerships with other government councils and agencies, as evidenced by linked domains. The site’s content and structure support its role as a central hub for federal IT priorities, workforce development, cybersecurity, cloud adoption, and data strategy. The lack of commercial advertising and the presence of official government seals and domains reinforce its authoritative market position.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS usage and anonymized IP tracking in analytics. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could enhance protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response contact information is published, which could limit transparency and responsiveness to security issues. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism despite active tracking scripts indicates partial privacy compliance. Overall, the site is secure for its purpose but could improve in transparency and advanced security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply with privacy best practices and regulations.
  2. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen security posture.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information to enhance trust and readiness.
  5. Regularly review and update privacy and security policies to maintain compliance with evolving standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Federal Chief Information Officers Council
Description
The CIO Council is a forum of Federal Chief Information Officers (CIOs) aiming to improve IT practices across U.S. Government agencies. The site shares priorities, key technology policies, news, and programs sponsored by the Council.
Key services
Policy and Priority Catalog, Zero Trust Data Security Guide, CIO Handbook, Government Technology Jobs, News and Updates
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.11.0, Google Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), Font Awesome 4.7.0, USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
USWDS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Anonymized IP tracking in Google Analytics
  • Official .gov domain usage

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government CIO Council website with authoritative content.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to privacy/security restrictions typical for .gov domains.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  4. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite tracking scripts.
  5. Contact information limited to official support email only.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  7. Good technical implementation with modern libraries and USWDS framework.
  8. No terms of service or vulnerability disclosure pages found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a stable and recognized technology stack including jQuery 1.11.0, Google Analytics, and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) framework, which supports accessibility and responsive design. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. The site is mobile-optimized and includes accessibility features such as skip navigation links and ARIA labels. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or government-managed platform. Hosting provider details are not available from the provided data. The site could benefit from modernizing jQuery to a more recent version and implementing additional security headers to reduce technical risks.
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 cio.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 cio.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.