Skip to main content

Security report for gatech.edu

Georgia Institute of Technology · Education · United States

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Georgia Institute of Technology is a leading public research university focused on advancing technology and improving lives through education and research. The website serves a diverse audience including prospective and current students, faculty, researchers, and the general public. It offers comprehensive information on academic programs, admissions, campus life, athletics, and research initiatives. The institution holds a strong market position as a top-ranked university with significant research funding and global engagement. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 with modern frameworks like Bootstrap and integrates multiple analytics and user experience tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Microsoft Clarity. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, cookie consent mechanisms, and anonymized analytics tracking, though explicit security headers could be more visible. The absence of WHOIS data is typical for .edu domains and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Overall, the website demonstrates professionalism, trustworthiness, and compliance with privacy regulations.

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. 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. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching gatech.edu

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. 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
90
Security headers
40
Email security
78
DNS health
65
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

Georgia Tech operates as a large educational entity within the education sector, providing essential academic and research services. Its business model centers on public education, research grants, and community engagement. The university's competitive advantage lies in its reputation, research capabilities, and extensive program offerings. The website's ecosystem includes partnerships with alumni associations, research institutes, and innovation centers. Growth indicators include recent news on research funding and infrastructure investments. The digital presence supports recruitment, fundraising, and stakeholder engagement effectively.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, cookie consent compliance, and anonymized user tracking. While no critical vulnerabilities were detected, the site could enhance security by explicitly publishing incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies. The use of multiple third-party analytics and tracking scripts necessitates ongoing monitoring for potential risks. The lack of exposed sensitive data and presence of privacy policies indicate good data protection practices. Overall, the security culture appears proactive but could benefit from more transparency on incident handling.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and explicitly document security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response policy accessible from the website.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools for security and privacy compliance.
  4. Enhance transparency around data retention policies and user data handling.
  5. Maintain and update privacy and cookie policies to reflect evolving regulations and technologies.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Georgia Institute of Technology
Description
Georgia Tech is a top public research university developing leaders in technology and improving lives, with diverse programs and global reach.
Key services
Academic programs, Research initiatives, Continuing and professional education, Campus life and student activities, Athletics, Corporate and economic engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Bootstrap 5.2.2, Font Awesome 6.6.0, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, UsableNet Assistive Technology
Frameworks
Drupal CMS, Bootstrap CSS Framework
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Anonymize IP in Google Analytics
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia
  2. Strong branding and consistent design
  3. Comprehensive navigation menus covering all major university functions
  4. Multiple official social media links present
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
  6. Cookie consent and privacy policies are implemented
  7. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  8. WHOIS data unavailable due to .edu domain restrictions
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages a modern technology stack centered on Drupal 10 CMS, Bootstrap for responsive design, and Font Awesome for iconography. It integrates advanced analytics and user behavior tracking tools including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Hotjar, enhancing user insights and experience optimization. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. The site uses multiple external CDNs and fonts, which should be monitored for availability and security. Technical debt appears low, but continuous modernization and security audits are recommended to maintain operational excellence.
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 gatech.edu. 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 gatech.edu.

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.