Skip to main content

Security report for fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service · Government · United States

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website serves as the official digital presence of a major federal agency responsible for managing national wildlife refuges, protecting endangered species, managing migratory birds, restoring fisheries, and enforcing wildlife laws. The agency operates under the U.S. Department of the Interior and targets a broad audience including the general public, conservationists, researchers, and policymakers. The website reflects a strong government identity with consistent branding and comprehensive content describing its mission and services. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics and DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics. It employs performance monitoring via Akamai Boomerang and is optimized for mobile devices with excellent accessibility and SEO practices. Hosting appears to be government-managed or via a reputable CDN provider, ensuring fast and reliable access. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configurations and includes standard security headers. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly available, representing an area for improvement. Overall, the website is highly trustworthy, professionally maintained, and compliant with privacy standards including GDPR. The lack of WHOIS data is typical for .gov domains and does not detract from legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security and incident response policies and providing a vulnerability disclosure channel to enhance transparency and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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. 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

  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 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
    • 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 fws.gov

This scan found 22 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. See sample alerts.

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
52
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
72

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds a critical position as a federal government agency in the environmental conservation sector. Its business model is non-commercial, focused on public service and regulatory enforcement. The agency's market position is authoritative and exclusive within the U.S. government framework for wildlife management. Revenue streams are government-funded, and the target customer segments include citizens, environmental organizations, researchers, and policymakers. The website's partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed but likely includes other government entities and conservation groups. The digital presence indicates maturity and strategic alignment with government digital standards.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, modern TLS protocols, and standard security headers. There is no evidence of vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive information. The use of government analytics tools suggests compliance with federal data privacy standards. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response procedures, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates gaps in transparency and formal security communication. The site would benefit from publishing these documents and providing clear security contact channels to improve incident handling readiness and stakeholder trust.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Enhance transparency by providing contact information for the Data Protection Officer or security team.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Maintain and communicate clear data retention and privacy policies aligned with GDPR and other regulations.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Description
United States federal agency that manages national wildlife refuges, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, and enforces federal wildlife laws.
Key services
Management of national wildlife refuges, Protection of endangered species, Management of migratory birds, Restoration of fisheries, Enforcement of federal wildlife laws
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js), DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics, Akamai Boomerang (performance monitoring)
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern TLS (TLS 1.3 indicated)
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts
  • Secure forms with proper labels and accessibility

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics
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 for Fish and Wildlife Service
  2. Uses modern web technologies and analytics
  3. Accessible and mobile optimized
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity
  5. WHOIS data unavailable but .gov domain implies high trust
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  7. Privacy and cookie policies present and comprehensive
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform, ensuring a robust and scalable content management system. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for user behavior tracking and DigitalGov analytics for federal compliance. Performance monitoring is conducted using Akamai Boomerang, indicating proactive performance management. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features, meeting high standards for usability. Hosting appears to be stable and secure, likely government-managed or via a reputable CDN. There is no indication of technical debt or outdated technologies, positioning the site well for future 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fws.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 fws.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.