Skip to main content

Security report for gsa.gov

U.S. General Services Administration · Government · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) operates as a federal government agency providing a wide range of services including real estate management, acquisition and purchasing programs, technology services, travel and lodging support, and small business resources. The website serves government agencies, businesses interested in government contracting, federal employees, and the general public. It holds a strong market position as the primary federal agency for government-wide acquisition and real estate services. Technically, the website is built on Drupal CMS and leverages modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS). The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, though performance is moderate. The infrastructure appears robust and professionally maintained. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, explicit security headers are not detected, and no published security or incident response policies are found in the provided content. Tracking and analytics tools are moderately used, with some privacy compliance gaps such as missing cookie consent mechanisms and privacy policy disclosures. Overall, the website is highly trustworthy and professional, consistent with an official government entity. The lack of WHOIS data is typical for .gov domains and does not detract from legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing clear privacy and security policies, and implementing cookie consent mechanisms to improve privacy compliance and user trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of gsa.gov. View the latest report

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. 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 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

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

Keep watching gsa.gov

This scan found 14 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
65
Email security
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
82

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

GSA holds a critical role in the U.S. government ecosystem, facilitating acquisition, real estate, and technology services across federal agencies. Its business model is service-oriented, focusing on enabling government operations and supporting small businesses in government contracting. The agency's extensive service portfolio and comprehensive online presence position it as a central hub for government procurement and real estate management. Partnerships with other government platforms such as acquisition.gov, sam.gov, and sba.gov reinforce its ecosystem. The website content and structure indicate a mature organization with a large enterprise scale and a focus on transparency and accessibility.

Security posture

The security posture of the GSA website is solid with mandatory HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of government-standard design and technology frameworks suggests adherence to federal security guidelines. However, the absence of explicit security headers and published security policies indicates room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators are detected. The site lacks visible incident response contact channels or vulnerability disclosure programs, which are recommended for enhanced security maturity. Overall, the site reflects a secure environment appropriate for a government agency but could benefit from additional transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Develop and make accessible a detailed privacy policy and cookie policy with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure information with dedicated contact channels.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy and security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. General Services Administration
Description
Our mission is to deliver the best customer experience and value in real estate, acquisition, and technology services to government and the American people.
Key services
Real estate management and services, Acquisition and purchasing programs, Technology and IT contract vehicles, Travel and lodging services, Small business support and resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal CMS, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, USWDS (U.S. Web Design System), Google Maps API, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of secure cookies (implied by gov domain and HTTPS)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, DigitalGov Analytics Program
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Eloqua (img.en25.com)
Marketing tools
Eloqua
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 navigation covering multiple government service areas
  3. No WHOIS registrar or registrant info publicly available, typical for .gov domains
  4. No privacy or cookie policy explicitly found in provided content
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in provided content
  6. Use of modern web technologies and government design standards
  7. No signs of adult or questionable content
  8. No WAF or blocking detected
  9. Good security posture with HTTPS but missing explicit security headers
  10. Moderate use of tracking and analytics tools
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal CMS, utilizing a modern tech stack including JavaScript, CSS, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics. It follows the U.S. Web Design System for consistent government branding and accessibility. Performance is moderate, likely due to the extensive CSS and JavaScript files loaded. Mobile optimization and accessibility are excellent, ensuring usability across devices and for users with disabilities. SEO is good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting details are not explicitly found but the site uses HTTPS and government infrastructure. Opportunities exist to optimize performance and enhance security headers.
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. 62/100 −16Medium23 findingsView report
  2. 78/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gsa.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 gsa.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.