Skip to main content

Security report for digital.gov

U.S. General Services Administration · Government · United States

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Digital.gov is an official U.S. government website operated by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) that provides guidance, resources, and community collaboration opportunities to improve digital services in government. The site targets government employees and digital service professionals, offering a comprehensive platform for best practices, events, and news related to government digital transformation. The website is well-branded, consistent, and highly professional, reflecting its authoritative position in the government digital services space. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10 and leverages the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) for accessibility and design consistency. It uses modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager, hosted on AWS DNS infrastructure. The site performs well with fast loading times, excellent mobile optimization, and strong accessibility features, making it user-friendly and compliant with government standards. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place. However, it lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers, and does not publish a vulnerability disclosure or incident response contact, which are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data confirms the domain's legitimacy as a government-owned .gov domain with privacy protection typical for such entities. Overall, Digital.gov is a trustworthy, authoritative government resource with excellent content quality and technical implementation. Strategic improvements in security headers, DNSSEC, and privacy compliance mechanisms would further enhance its security posture and user trust.

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 digital.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
85
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
74

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

Digital.gov occupies a strong market position as the U.S. government's central hub for digital service guidance and community engagement. Its business model is service-oriented, focusing on providing resources, training, and collaboration platforms for government digital professionals. The site benefits from its affiliation with GSA, leveraging government trust and authority. Its target audience includes federal employees, digital service teams, and public sector stakeholders seeking to improve digital government services. The platform's growth is supported by active communities, regular events, and a steady stream of relevant content. Partnerships with other government entities like 18F and Section508.gov enhance its ecosystem. The site’s consistent branding and comprehensive content reinforce its credibility and leadership in government digital transformation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS enforcement and domain transfer protections. The use of a .gov domain and hosting under AWS DNS adds to its security credibility. However, the absence of DNSSEC and missing security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options represent gaps that could be addressed to mitigate risks like DNS spoofing and clickjacking. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency for security researchers. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the site is secure but could benefit from adopting additional security best practices and formalizing incident response communication.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement standard security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance browser security.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy best practices and improve transparency.
  5. Provide explicit incident response contact information to improve security communication and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. General Services Administration
Description
Digital.gov provides guidance on building better digital services in government, offering resources, communities, events, and news focused on improving digital experiences for the public sector.
Key services
Digital service guidance, Community collaboration, Events and training, Resources and best practices
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, AWS DNS hosting
Frameworks
U.S. Web Design System (USWDS)
Platforms
Drupal CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status serverTransferProhibited
  • Official .gov domain
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Universal-Federated-Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
GovDelivery newsletter signup
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government website with .gov domain
  2. Comprehensive digital service guidance and community resources
  3. Uses modern Drupal 10 CMS and USWDS framework
  4. Strong branding consistency and accessibility compliance
  5. No detected security headers, DNSSEC not enabled
  6. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found
  7. Multiple social media official accounts linked
  8. No visible vulnerability disclosure or security.txt
  9. WHOIS privacy protection standard for government domains
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform, utilizing the U.S. Web Design System for consistent and accessible UI components. Hosting is supported by AWS DNS services, ensuring reliable domain resolution. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user behavior tracking and marketing analytics. Performance is optimized with fast loading times and excellent mobile responsiveness. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is well-implemented, meeting government standards. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, with opportunities to enhance security configurations 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 digital.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 digital.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.