Skip to main content

Security report for epa.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Government · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website serves as the official digital presence of the federal government agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment. The site offers extensive resources on environmental topics, laws and regulations, grant opportunities, and public engagement. It targets a broad audience including the general public, government stakeholders, researchers, and businesses. The EPA maintains a strong market position as a key regulatory authority in the United States with an enterprise-level digital infrastructure. Technically, the website is built on the Drupal CMS platform, leveraging modern web technologies such as Google Tag Manager, jQuery, and digital analytics tools including the Digital Analytics Program and CrazyEgg. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, contributing to a positive user experience and professional design quality. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses an official .gov domain, which are strong trust indicators. However, explicit security headers are not evident in the HTML content, and no visible cookie consent mechanism was detected, which are areas for improvement. The absence of WHOIS data is typical for government domains and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Overall, the EPA website exhibits a mature security posture with room for enhancements in privacy compliance and transparency. The overall risk assessment is low, with the site presenting minimal vulnerabilities and high trustworthiness. Strategic recommendations include implementing explicit security headers, adding a cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations, publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy, and providing clear incident response contact information to enhance transparency 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. 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

  2. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching epa.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
82
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
78

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 EPA operates as a federal government agency with a mission to safeguard environmental and public health. Its business model is non-commercial, focusing on regulatory enforcement, public education, research, and grant management. The agency's competitive advantage lies in its authoritative regulatory role and comprehensive environmental data resources. Revenue streams are government-funded, with grants and contracts supporting various programs. The EPA's target customers include citizens, businesses, researchers, and policymakers. Growth indicators are tied to legislative mandates and environmental priorities. The agency maintains partnerships with other government entities and public organizations, reflected in linked domains such as regulations.gov and usa.gov. Operationally, the EPA demonstrates a robust digital presence aligned with its public service mandate.

Security posture

The EPA website exhibits a solid security foundation with mandatory HTTPS encryption and use of a trusted .gov domain. The absence of exposed sensitive data and secure form implementations are positive indicators. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security suggests potential areas for hardening. No vulnerabilities or malicious scripts were detected in the provided HTML content. Privacy compliance is partial, with a comprehensive privacy policy present but no visible cookie consent mechanism. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, which could be improved to enhance security transparency. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from additional best practices and compliance measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement explicit security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations such as GDPR and CCPA.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to provide transparency and encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to minimize potential security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Description
Website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment.
Key services
Environmental regulation and enforcement, Public health and environmental protection information, Grant management and funding, Research and data dissemination, Public engagement and education
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal CMS, Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), CrazyEgg, Source Sans Pro font, Merriweather font
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of official .gov domain
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with proper labeling

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
CrazyEgg
Tracking pixels
Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Marketing tools
CrazyEgg
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 environmental topics and resources
  3. Multiple language support for accessibility
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  6. No explicit cookie consent banner detected
  7. WHOIS data unavailable but expected for government domains
Technical notes

Notes

The EPA website is built on a mature Drupal CMS platform, utilizing modern front-end technologies including jQuery and web fonts for enhanced typography. The site integrates multiple analytics and tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager, Digital Analytics Program scripts, and CrazyEgg for user behavior analysis. Performance is moderate, with good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features implemented. The site structure includes comprehensive metadata and Open Graph tags for SEO and social sharing. Technical debt appears minimal, though opportunities exist to optimize security headers and implement privacy consent mechanisms. Hosting details are not explicitly identified but the site operates under a .gov domain, indicating government-managed infrastructure.
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. 80/100Low21 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with epa.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 epa.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.