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, serving researchers, developers, policymakers, and the general public. The site emphasizes transparency, innovation, and accessibility, offering tools and resources to facilitate data-driven decision-making and application development. The platform is well-established, celebrating over 15 years of operation, and is positioned as a key government resource for open data dissemination. Technically, Data.gov employs a modern technology stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, Popper.js, and integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for performance and user behavior tracking. The site is hosted on Amazon AWS infrastructure, ensuring scalability and reliability. It is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, reflecting a mature digital presence. The use of USWDS (U.S. Web Design System) aligns with federal web standards. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses reputable analytics tools, and avoids exposing sensitive information. However, it lacks DNSSEC, explicit security policies, and a vulnerability disclosure program, which are areas for improvement. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy, but no cookie consent mechanism is present. The WHOIS data confirms the domain's legitimacy as a government entity with a long registration history. Overall, Data.gov demonstrates a strong security posture, excellent content quality, and high business credibility. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing cookie consent, publishing security and incident response policies, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure process to further enhance trust and compliance.

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 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
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 operates as a government open data portal under the GSA, targeting a broad audience including researchers, developers, and policymakers. Its business model is non-commercial, focused on transparency and public service. The platform's extensive dataset catalog and integration with related government resources position it as a central hub for federal open data. The site benefits from strong government backing, consistent branding, and a mature digital ecosystem. Partnerships with resources.data.gov and strategy.data.gov enhance its service offerings. Growth indicators include dataset expansion and high monthly pageviews. The platform's strategic focus on innovation and transparency supports government open data mandates and policies.

Security posture

The security posture of Data.gov is solid, with mandatory HTTPS enforced and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The site uses modern libraries and frameworks without known vulnerabilities. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents minor gaps. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response information, nor a vulnerability disclosure program, which limits transparency in security management. Analytics usage is moderate and managed via Google Tag Manager and DAP, with no aggressive tracking detected. Overall, the site maintains good security hygiene but could improve in policy transparency and DNS security.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  3. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan accessible to users.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen protection.
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 data, tools, and resources to conduct research, develop applications, and promote 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 slim, Popper.js 2.11.8, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js), Digital Analytics Program (DAP), USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
Bootstrap, USWDS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for analytics
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Transparency
good

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 reputable analytics and tracking tools with no aggressive advertising.
  5. No visible security or privacy policy gaps except for missing cookie consent.
  6. WHOIS data consistent with government ownership and domain age.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

Data.gov is built on a modern and robust technical infrastructure leveraging Bootstrap 5, jQuery, Popper.js, and USWDS for design consistency and responsiveness. Hosting on AWS provides scalability and reliability. The site integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for data collection and performance monitoring, alongside the Digital Analytics Program for federal analytics compliance. The website is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, reflecting adherence to best practices. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or government-managed platform. Performance is fast with asynchronous script loading. Technical risks are minimal but include the lack of DNSSEC and some missing security headers.
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.