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, managed under the General Services Administration (GSA). It provides a comprehensive catalog of over 360,000 datasets, tools, and resources aimed at enabling public research, application development, and data visualization. The site serves a broad audience including the public, policymakers, researchers, and developers, positioning itself as a critical infrastructure for government transparency and innovation. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Bootstrap, jQuery, Popper.js, and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS), hosted on Amazon AWS infrastructure. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Digital Analytics Program scripts for analytics and performance monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and demonstrates good SEO practices. From a security perspective, Data.gov enforces HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and domain transfer protections. While DNSSEC is not enabled, the overall security posture is strong with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The site lacks explicit security policies or incident response contact information, which could be improved. Overall, Data.gov is a highly credible, professional, and secure government platform with excellent content quality and user experience. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing a security.txt file, and enhancing transparency around security policies and incident response to further strengthen trust and compliance.

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 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 essential entity under the GSA, focusing on providing open government data to drive transparency, innovation, and informed decision-making. Its market position is unique as the official federal open data portal, with no direct commercial competitors. The business model is service-oriented, offering free access to datasets and resources. The platform supports a wide ecosystem of government agencies and external users, fostering partnerships with related sites like resources.data.gov and strategy.data.gov. Growth indicators include a large and growing dataset catalog and active engagement through social media channels. The site’s operations reflect a mature, well-established government service with strategic importance in the federal data landscape.

Security posture

Data.gov demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, domain transfer protection, and secure hosting on AWS. The absence of DNSSEC is a minor gap. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected in the site content or scripts. However, the site does not publicly disclose detailed security policies or incident response procedures, which are best practices for transparency and user trust. The use of Google Analytics and other tracking scripts is balanced with privacy compliance indicated by a comprehensive privacy policy. Overall, the security culture appears robust but could benefit from enhanced public security documentation and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts.
  3. Add explicit security and incident response policy pages to enhance transparency.
  4. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  5. Maintain and update analytics and tracking disclosures to ensure ongoing privacy compliance.
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 unleash the power of government open data to inform decisions by the public and policymakers, drive innovation and economic activity, achieve agency missions, and strengthen the foundation of an open and transparent government.
Key services
Open data catalog, Data tools and resources, Metrics and analytics on datasets, Open government information
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, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
Bootstrap, USWDS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No DNSSEC (not enabled)
  • Domain transfer protection enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with POST method

Analytics and tracking

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

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
  2. Extensive dataset catalog with over 360,000 datasets
  3. Strong branding and government affiliation
  4. Secure HTTPS with transfer protection
  5. Modern responsive design using USWDS and Bootstrap
  6. No exposed sensitive data or security issues detected
  7. Limited direct contact info but contact form available
  8. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  9. No visible terms of service or security policy pages
  10. Active social media presence on Twitter and Github
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern, responsive front-end stack leveraging Bootstrap 5 and USWDS for accessibility and design consistency. Hosting on AWS with Amazon DNS services provides scalable and reliable infrastructure. The integration of Google Tag Manager and Digital Analytics Program scripts supports comprehensive analytics and performance monitoring. The site loads efficiently with asynchronous script loading and CDN usage. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or government-specific content management solution. The technical implementation reflects a well-maintained, enterprise-grade government web platform with opportunities for further 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. 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.