Office of the Director of National Intelligence · Government · United States
Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.
The website intelligence.gov serves as the official portal for the U.S. Intelligence Community, managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It provides comprehensive information about the community's mission, organizational structure, career opportunities, and public-facing transparency initiatives including declassified documents. The site targets a broad audience including the general public, researchers, and potential intelligence community employees. The business model is informational and governmental, focusing on public education and transparency rather than commercial activities. Technically, the site is built on Joomla CMS with modern front-end technologies such as Bootstrap and jQuery. It leverages Google Tag Manager and Akamai mPulse for analytics and performance monitoring. The site is mobile optimized with good accessibility and SEO practices, though some accessibility features could be enhanced. Hosting appears to be supported by Akamai CDN, contributing to moderate performance. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks visible security headers and a cookie consent mechanism, which are recommended for improved security posture and privacy compliance. The absence of explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is noted. WHOIS data is incomplete, which is not uncommon for government domains but reduces transparency in domain registration details. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, with a strong focus on public trust and transparency. Strategic recommendations include enhancing privacy compliance with cookie consent, publishing security policies, and implementing additional security headers to strengthen the security posture further.
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.
6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.
Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing
What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately
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"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
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
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 23 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. See sample alerts.
€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 intelligence.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 intelligence.gov.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
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 intelligence.gov. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review intelligence.gov.