Skip to main content

Security report for disasterassistance.gov

Government · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website disasterassistance.gov appears to be a government-related domain established in 2008, likely providing disaster assistance services. However, the current content is inaccessible due to a Cloudflare Web Application Firewall (WAF) blocking access, resulting in an 'Access Denied' error page. This prevents any detailed analysis of the website's content, policies, or services. The domain registration is privacy protected but consistent with a government entity, and the domain age supports legitimacy. Technical infrastructure includes Cloudflare DNS and hosting, but DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers are detectable. Overall, the site’s security posture and compliance cannot be fully assessed due to the blocked content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

6 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 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 disasterassistance.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
80
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
68

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention disasterassistance.gov, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
22,349
Employees
0
Customers
22,349
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
42%

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for disasterassistance.gov.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Given the domain and registration data, disasterassistance.gov is positioned as an essential government service provider in the disaster assistance sector. The domain age and registrar align with a stable government presence. However, no public-facing business information, contact details, or policies are accessible, limiting insights into operational models, partnerships, or market positioning. The lack of accessible content restricts evaluation of growth indicators or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The security posture is difficult to evaluate fully due to the WAF blocking access. The presence of Cloudflare indicates some level of protection against attacks. However, the absence of DNSSEC and visible security headers suggests room for improvement. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is publicly available. The domain’s privacy protection is justified but limits transparency. Overall, the security maturity appears basic with critical gaps in public security communication and policy availability.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and trustworthiness.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and security policies accessible to users.
  3. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Provide public vulnerability disclosure and incident response contact information.
  5. Ensure website content is accessible for proper security, compliance, and business analysis.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Access Denied page served by Cloudflare indicating WAF or security challenge blocking access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to Cloudflare WAF blocking access.
  2. No metadata, structured data, or business content available for analysis.
  3. No contact information, policies, or forms detected.
  4. Domain is government-related with a long registration history.
  5. Security headers and DNSSEC are not configured or not detectable.
  6. No analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts detected due to blocked content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted behind Cloudflare, which provides DNS and WAF services. The domain is registered with get.gov and has a long registration history. No CMS or frameworks are detectable due to blocked content. Performance, accessibility, SEO, and mobile optimization cannot be assessed. The lack of DNSSEC and security headers indicates technical debt in security configuration. The current WAF blocking prevents any further technical evaluation.
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. 68/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with disasterassistance.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 disasterassistance.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.