Skip to main content

Security report for cisa.gov

Government · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at cisa.gov is currently inaccessible due to a Web Application Firewall or security blocking mechanism, as evidenced by the 'Access Denied' page and minimal HTML content referencing errors.edgesuite.net. This prevents direct analysis of the site's content, policies, or contact information. The domain is registered under a government-focused registrar with privacy protection enabled, which is somewhat unusual but may be justified given the nature of the site. The domain age aligns with a relatively recent establishment in 2018, consistent with a government agency's digital presence. Due to the blocking, no metadata, scripts, or business details could be extracted, limiting the assessment of technical infrastructure and digital maturity. Security posture cannot be fully evaluated, but the lack of DNSSEC and security headers is noted as areas for improvement. Overall, the site appears legitimate but inaccessible for detailed analysis, resulting in a low AI score and recommendations to address blocking and improve transparency.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

6 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"

    • 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 cisa.gov

This scan found 20 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
70

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

Given the domain and registrar, the entity is likely a government agency focused on cybersecurity or infrastructure security. The domain age and registration status support this. However, no direct business information, services, or partnerships are visible due to content blocking. The business model is presumably public sector service provision with a focus on national security. No revenue streams or customer segments can be identified from the data. The lack of visible contact or policy information limits insights into operational transparency or stakeholder engagement.

Security posture

The security posture assessment is constrained by the lack of accessible content. The presence of a WAF or security blocking mechanism indicates some level of security awareness. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers, as well as no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies, suggests room for improvement. No exposed vulnerabilities or sensitive data were detected, but this cannot be confirmed without content access. The domain's privacy protection is unusual for a government site but may be a deliberate security measure. Overall, the security maturity appears moderate but unverifiable.

Recommendations

  1. Review and adjust WAF/security settings to allow legitimate access for analysis and user access.
  2. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and trust.
  3. Publish privacy, cookie, security, and incident response policies publicly to improve transparency and compliance.
  4. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Provide clear contact information including security incident contacts to facilitate communication and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Access Denied page with minimal HTML content and reference to errors.edgesuite.net indicates a WAF or security blocking mechanism. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a WAF or security mechanism.
  2. No accessible content to analyze for policies, contact info, or business details.
  3. WHOIS data indicates a government-related domain with privacy protection.
  4. No metadata, forms, scripts, or external links except error reference found.
  5. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  6. Content safety is safe due to lack of content.
  7. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

Technical analysis is limited due to content blocking. The domain uses foundationdns name servers and is registered with get.gov, indicating a government-focused infrastructure. No CMS, frameworks, or scripts were detectable. Performance, mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO cannot be assessed. The lack of DNSSEC and security headers is noted as a technical gap. Hosting provider details beyond DNS are not available. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears basic with potential for modernization and 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. 71/100Medium27 findingsView report
  2. 71/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with cisa.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 cisa.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.