Skip to main content

Security report for cusec.org

Central United States Earthquake Consortium · Government · United States

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) operates as a regional non-profit partnership focused on earthquake risk mitigation and disaster preparedness in the central United States. The website serves as an information hub offering earthquake safety education, risk data, emergency management tools, and event information. It targets government agencies, emergency responders, educators, and the general public within the region. The organization is well-established, with a domain registered since 1997, and maintains partnerships with federal agencies such as FEMA and USGS. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Genesis Framework, enhanced with UIkit and Widgetkit for UI components. It employs modern web technologies including jQuery and Google Analytics for tracking. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content. Hosting and domain registration are consistent with the organization's profile. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place. However, it lacks DNSSEC and HTTP security headers, which are recommended to enhance security posture. There is no cookie consent mechanism despite the use of tracking scripts, which may impact privacy compliance. The site publishes comprehensive privacy, terms, and security policies, indicating a mature approach to governance. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and serves its mission effectively. Strategic improvements in security headers, DNSSEC, and privacy consent mechanisms would further strengthen its security and compliance stance.

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

7 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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 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 cusec.org

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
49

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

CUSEC holds a strong market position as a regional government/non-profit consortium specializing in earthquake preparedness and emergency management collaboration. Its business model revolves around providing educational resources, risk information, and operational tools to member states and emergency professionals. The organization benefits from partnerships with federal agencies and a network of member states, enhancing its credibility and reach. Revenue streams likely include government funding and grants. The website supports community engagement through events, newsletters, and training workshops, indicating active stakeholder involvement and growth potential.

Security posture

CUSEC demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections enabled. The absence of DNSSEC and HTTP security headers represents areas for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were detected in the website content. Privacy compliance is partial due to missing cookie consent mechanisms despite tracking usage. Incident response contact is available via email and fraud/abuse policies are published. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a government/non-profit site but could benefit from enhanced DNS and HTTP security controls and improved privacy compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations given the use of tracking scripts.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Central United States Earthquake Consortium
Description
CUSEC is a partnership focused on mitigating disasters and saving lives through earthquake preparedness, risk awareness, and emergency management collaboration in the central United States.
Key services
Earthquake risk information, Safety and preparedness education, Emergency management tools and resources, Events and training workshops, Community Lifeline Status System deployment
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Analytics, Widgetkit, UIkit
Frameworks
Genesis Framework
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No DNSSEC (not enabled)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security policies linked (fraud and abuse)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
MailChimp
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-established government/non-profit consortium site.
  2. Content is comprehensive and focused on earthquake risk and preparedness.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and CMS.
  5. Lacks some advanced security headers and DNSSEC.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite use of tracking.
  7. Clear contact information and multiple policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress CMS platform using the Genesis Framework, supplemented by UIkit and Widgetkit for UI components. It leverages jQuery and Google Analytics for interactivity and analytics. The site is hosted with a reputable registrar and uses DNS services from Dyn. Performance is moderate with responsive design for mobile devices. The site uses canonical URLs, meta descriptions, and RSS feeds supporting SEO. However, there is room for technical modernization by enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers. The site’s technical infrastructure supports its business goals effectively but could be improved for enhanced security and privacy compliance.
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 cusec.org. 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 cusec.org.

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.