City of Carmel · Government · United States
Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.
The City of Carmel's official website serves as a comprehensive municipal portal offering residents, businesses, and visitors access to city hall information, departments, services, events, news, and contact details. The site is well-positioned as a local government authority, providing essential public services and community engagement tools. Its target audience includes local residents, businesses, and tourists seeking city resources and updates. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including jQuery, AlpineJS, Google Tag Manager, and Azure Application Insights, hosted on the CivicPlus CMS platform. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, though performance is moderate. The presence of telemetry and analytics tools indicates a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and anti-forgery tokens, but lacks explicit security headers and a vulnerability disclosure policy. No incident response contacts or security certifications are visible. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be improved with enhanced headers and transparency. The website is trustworthy and professional, with clear contact information and official social media links. No adult or inappropriate content is present, making it safe for general audiences. The lack of WHOIS data is typical for government domains and does not detract from legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include implementing security headers, adding a security.txt file, improving privacy compliance, and enhancing incident response visibility.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1
What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 24 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention in.gov, from OffSeq Breach.
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for in.gov.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Domains that imitate in.gov and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.
Last checked 2026-07-18
See the full lookalike list
A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of in.gov with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.
Select it in the checkout above.
Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with in.gov. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review in.gov.