Skip to main content

Security report for data.gov

General Services Administration · Government · United States

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

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Data.gov is the official open data portal of the United States Government, operated under the General Services Administration (GSA). It provides a comprehensive catalog of over 300,000 datasets from more than 100 government organizations, supporting research, innovation, and transparency. The website is well-branded, professionally designed, and optimized for accessibility and mobile use, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. The technical stack includes modern frameworks such as Bootstrap and USWDS, with analytics integrated via Google Tag Manager and the Digital Analytics Program. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though explicit security headers and published security policies are absent. Privacy compliance is partial, with a clear privacy policy but no cookie consent mechanism or GDPR-specific indicators. Contact information is limited to a contact form, with no direct emails or phone numbers listed. Overall, Data.gov demonstrates a high level of trustworthiness and professionalism as a government data platform.

Scanned

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

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 data.gov

This scan found 19 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
92
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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

Data.gov holds a strong market position as the primary U.S. government open data portal, serving a broad audience including researchers, developers, and policymakers. Its business model is centered on providing free, open access to government datasets to drive innovation and transparency. The site benefits from partnerships with related government resources such as resources.data.gov and strategy.data.gov, enhancing its ecosystem. The platform's longevity since 2009 and consistent branding under GSA reinforce its credibility. Revenue streams are typical of government-funded initiatives, focusing on public service rather than commercial profit. Growth indicators include a steadily increasing dataset catalog and high monthly pageviews. Strategic observations highlight the need for enhanced privacy and security disclosures to maintain compliance and user trust.

Security posture

The security maturity of Data.gov is good, with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data detected in the HTML content. The use of Google Tag Manager and Digital Analytics Program indicates controlled data collection practices. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. No vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file is published, limiting transparency in incident response readiness. Contact channels for security incidents are not explicitly provided. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations is partial, with no clear indicators of full adherence. The security culture appears focused on foundational best practices but would benefit from formalized policies and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Develop and publicly share a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to improve transparency and encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Expand contact information to include dedicated security and incident response email addresses to facilitate timely communication.
  5. Regularly review and update privacy and security policies to ensure full compliance with GDPR and other relevant regulations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
General Services Administration
Description
The United States Government’s open data site designed to provide access to government open data to inform public and policymaker decisions, drive innovation, and strengthen transparency.
Key services
Open data catalog, Data search and discovery, Resources for data use and visualization
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, jQuery 3.5.1, Popper.js 2.11.8, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
Bootstrap, USWDS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure cookies (implied by HTTPS)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and DAP for analytics

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Digital Analytics Program
Marketing tools
Digital Analytics Program
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government open data portal with extensive dataset catalog.
  2. Strong branding and consistent government identity.
  3. Modern, accessible, and mobile-optimized website design.
  4. Use of standard government analytics and tracking tools.
  5. Lacks explicit cookie consent mechanism and published security policies.
  6. No visible security headers detected in provided data.
  7. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed; contact via form only.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages a modern and robust technical infrastructure, including Bootstrap 5.3.3 for responsive design, jQuery for DOM manipulation, and Popper.js for UI components. Hosting is provided via Amazon S3 in the AWS GovCloud region, ensuring compliance with government hosting standards. Performance is optimized with asynchronous loading of scripts and use of CDN resources. Accessibility is well addressed through USWDS standards and skip navigation links. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. Technical debt appears minimal, though the absence of some security headers and privacy mechanisms suggests areas for modernization. Overall, the technical implementation supports a fast, secure, and user-friendly experience aligned with government digital service standards.
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. 76/100Low26 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with data.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 data.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.