Skip to main content

Security report for humanrights.gov.au

Australian Human Rights Commission · Government · Australia

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission website serves as the official digital presence of the Australian government agency responsible for promoting and protecting human rights. It offers comprehensive information on various human rights topics, complaint mechanisms, educational resources, and news updates. The site targets a broad audience including the general public, legal professionals, educators, and advocates. The business model is that of a government regulatory and advocacy body with a strong national presence. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 CMS and leverages modern web technologies including jQuery UI, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, and FullStory for analytics and user experience insights. Hosting is supported by Microsoft Azure DNS infrastructure. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, though performance is moderate. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses domain registration protections to prevent unauthorized changes. However, it lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers, and does not provide a vulnerability disclosure or incident response contact page. Privacy compliance is basic, with no visible cookie consent mechanism, which is a gap given the tracking technologies in use. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and content-rich, reflecting its government authority status. The main risks relate to privacy compliance and security best practices that could be improved to enhance user trust and regulatory adherence.

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

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 humanrights.gov.au

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
95
Security headers
60
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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 Australian Human Rights Commission holds a strong market position as the national government authority on human rights in Australia. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status, comprehensive mandate, and broad service offerings including complaint investigation, education, and advocacy. Revenue streams are government-funded, focusing on public service rather than commercial gain. The target customer segments include individuals affected by discrimination, legal professionals, educators, and policy makers. Growth indicators include active projects, featured reports, and engagement through social media and events. The partnership ecosystem includes government departments and community organizations. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining digital trust and compliance to support its public mission.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, domain registration protections, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of multiple analytics and tracking tools indicates a need for enhanced privacy controls. The absence of DNSSEC and security headers represents potential vulnerabilities. Lack of a public vulnerability disclosure or incident response contact reduces transparency and readiness. Compliance gaps exist in cookie consent and GDPR alignment. The security culture appears focused on operational stability but could benefit from formalized disclosure and incident management processes. Overall, the site is secure but improvements are recommended to meet modern standards and user expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement comprehensive security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add a publicly accessible vulnerability disclosure or security.txt page to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  5. Publish clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Australian Human Rights Commission
Description
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is an independent third party which investigates complaints about discrimination and human rights breaches. It promotes and protects human rights in Australia.
Key services
Human rights investigations, Complaints handling, Publications and reports, Education and training, Advocacy and awareness campaigns
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery UI, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, FullStory, AddToAny, ReadSpeaker
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Client and server domain status prohibiting unauthorized changes
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security status codes in domain registration

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, FullStory
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, FullStory
Marketing tools
AddToAny
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official Australian government human rights commission website
  2. Comprehensive content on human rights topics and complaints
  3. Modern Drupal 10 CMS with multiple third-party analytics and tracking tools
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banner detected
  5. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page
  6. Social media presence on official platforms
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform with integration of popular JavaScript libraries and analytics tools. Hosting is supported by Microsoft Azure DNS infrastructure, indicating reliable and scalable backend services. The site demonstrates good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple third-party scripts and rich content. Technical debt appears low with up-to-date frameworks, but opportunities exist to optimize loading times and enhance security configurations. The use of structured data and meta tags supports SEO effectiveness. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could be further optimized for speed and security.
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 humanrights.gov.au. 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 humanrights.gov.au.

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.