Skip to main content

Security report for eac.gov

U.S. Election Assistance Commission · Government · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is a federal government agency dedicated to improving election administration and supporting voters and election officials across the United States. The website serves as a comprehensive resource hub offering election management guidelines, voter information, election technology certification, research data, and grant management resources. It targets election officials, voters, researchers, and government stakeholders, positioning itself as the authoritative federal entity in election assistance. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 and employs modern web technologies including jQuery, Flexslider, and Google Tag Manager. It demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices. The site uses HTTPS exclusively, ensuring secure connections, and integrates social media channels for broader engagement. From a security perspective, the site follows best practices such as HTTPS enforcement and secure external linking. However, explicit security headers are not clearly visible in the HTML, and there is no visible cookie consent mechanism or vulnerability disclosure policy. WHOIS data is unavailable, which is typical for .gov domains, but this limits domain registration transparency. Overall, the site exhibits a strong security posture appropriate for a government agency. The overall risk assessment is low given the official nature, secure infrastructure, and absence of suspicious content. Strategic recommendations include implementing explicit cookie consent for privacy compliance, publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy, enhancing security headers, and providing incident response contact information 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

5 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching eac.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
75
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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

The EAC operates as a unique federal government entity with a clear mandate to support election administration. Its market position is exclusive within the U.S. government sector, providing essential services such as voting system certification, election official resources, voter education, and research publication. The business model is service-oriented, funded by government appropriations, and focused on regulatory and support functions rather than commercial revenue. The website reflects a mature digital presence with extensive content and resource offerings, indicating a well-established operational framework. Partnerships with other government entities like USA.gov and the Office of Special Counsel enhance its ecosystem. The agency's communications and outreach via social media and newsletters demonstrate active engagement with its target audiences.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of secure external linking and absence of vulnerable libraries in scripts are positive indicators. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and Content-Security-Policy in the visible HTML is a minor gap. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism and vulnerability disclosure policy indicates room for improvement in privacy compliance and transparency. WHOIS data is not publicly available, which is common for .gov domains but limits external verification. Overall, the site is secure for its purpose but could enhance compliance and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a visible cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  2. Publish a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to provide transparency and a clear channel for security reporting.
  3. Add explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to strengthen browser security.
  4. Provide public incident response contact information to facilitate timely reporting and handling of security incidents.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Description
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process. It is the only federal agency solely focused on election administration.
Key services
Election equipment certification and testing, Election official resources and toolkits, Voter information and accessibility resources, Research and data publication, Grant management and oversight
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery, Chosen jQuery plugin, Flexslider, Glightbox, Google Tag Manager, AddToAny sharing
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure external links with rel='noreferrer'
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
AddToAny sharing
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 TLD
  2. Content focused on election assistance and administration
  3. Comprehensive navigation with multiple resource categories
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  5. No visible privacy or cookie consent banners
  6. WHOIS data unavailable but expected for .gov domain
  7. Strong social media presence on official platforms
  8. Use of modern web technologies and CMS (Drupal 10)
  9. Good accessibility and mobile optimization
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely used CMS, ensuring a robust content management framework. It uses popular JavaScript libraries and plugins such as jQuery, Chosen, Flexslider, and Glightbox for enhanced UI/UX. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking, indicating a structured approach to data collection. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, following US Web Design System standards. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in loading times. The absence of visible hosting provider information limits infrastructure assessment. Overall, the technical implementation is solid with modern tools but could benefit from performance tuning and enhanced security header configurations.
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. 73/100 −2Medium27 findingsView report
  2. 75/100 +2Medium26 findingsView report
  3. 73/100Medium21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with eac.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 eac.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.