Skip to main content

Security report for justice.gov

U.S. Department of Justice · Government · United States

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

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) operates as the primary federal agency responsible for law enforcement, legal prosecution, and ensuring public safety in the United States. The website serves as an official portal providing comprehensive information about DOJ's mission, values, organizational structure, news, and resources for the public, law enforcement, and legal professionals. The site is well-branded, professionally designed, and offers extensive multimedia content including videos and news updates. The target audience includes the general public, government employees, crime victims, and legal practitioners. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 CMS, leveraging modern web technologies such as Google Fonts, Slick Carousel, and integrates analytics tools like Google Tag Manager and Siteimprove Analytics. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident. Security posture is strong with enforced HTTPS and no visible sensitive data exposure, though some security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is supported by a comprehensive privacy policy, though no explicit cookie consent mechanism was detected. Overall, the DOJ website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and operational maturity. The domain's .gov status and consistent branding reinforce its legitimacy. There are no indications of security vulnerabilities or compliance gaps that would pose significant risk. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing a visible security.txt file, and improving cookie consent transparency to further strengthen privacy compliance.

Scanned

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 justice.gov

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
90
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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 DOJ holds a dominant position as the federal government's legal and law enforcement authority. Its business model is non-commercial, focused on public service and enforcement of federal laws. The website reflects a mature digital presence with extensive resources, news dissemination, and public engagement tools. Partnerships with agencies like FBI, DEA, and OJP are evident through linked domains and content. The site supports a large enterprise-scale operation with multiple divisions and bureaus. Growth indicators include active news updates and multimedia content. The DOJ's ecosystem includes grants, victim assistance, and employment services, indicating a broad operational scope.

Security posture

The DOJ website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, no exposed sensitive data, and use of official government domains. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No visible vulnerabilities or outdated libraries were detected. Privacy policies and vulnerability disclosure policies are present, though incident response contact details are not explicitly provided. The site lacks a cookie consent mechanism, which could be enhanced for better privacy compliance. Overall, the security culture appears strong, consistent with government standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve incident response transparency.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy best practices and enhance user trust.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no vulnerable or deprecated libraries are in use.
  5. Enhance visibility of data protection officer contact information and incident response channels.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
U.S. Department of Justice
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Department of Justice
Description
Official website of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ’s mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
Key services
Law enforcement, Legal prosecution, Crime victim assistance, Public safety, Grants administration
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Fonts, Slick Carousel, YouTube iframe API, Siteimprove Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure cookies likely (not explicitly visible)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of official .gov domain

Analytics and tracking

Services
Siteimprove Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Siteimprove Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government website with .gov domain
  2. Comprehensive and well-structured content
  3. Multiple embedded videos and news updates
  4. Clear mission and values stated
  5. Robust navigation with multiple sections and resources
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  7. Strong branding and trust signals
  8. No visible security headers in HTML but HTTPS enforced
  9. No cookie consent banner detected
  10. WHOIS data limited but consistent with government domain policies
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform, utilizing standard web technologies and third-party libraries such as Slick Carousel and Google Fonts. Analytics integration includes Google Tag Manager and Siteimprove Analytics, supporting data-driven insights. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features, ensuring broad usability. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in script loading and caching strategies. The technical infrastructure aligns with enterprise-level government standards, though hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and privacy mechanisms to reduce technical debt and improve compliance.
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. 76/100 +1Low25 findingsView report
  2. 75/100Medium20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with justice.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 justice.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.