Skip to main content

Security report for maryland.gov

State of Maryland · Government · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Maryland.gov is the official website of the State of Maryland, serving as a comprehensive portal for residents, businesses, government employees, and visitors. It provides access to a wide range of state services including online applications, job listings, business resources, and government information. The site is well-positioned as a trusted government resource with a strong focus on accessibility, user experience, and service delivery. Technically, the website leverages a mature technology stack including Microsoft SharePoint as the CMS platform, jQuery, Bootstrap, and integrates analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility compliance, and modern web practices, although performance is moderate likely due to the complexity and volume of content. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses secure form tokens, and includes standard security headers, though explicit Content-Security-Policy headers and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but cookie consent mechanisms could be enhanced. The WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, which is typical for government domains, and does not raise legitimacy concerns. Overall, Maryland.gov presents a secure, professional, and user-friendly government portal with strong business credibility and technical maturity. Strategic improvements could focus on enhancing security headers, publishing vulnerability disclosure information, and implementing cookie consent to further strengthen privacy compliance and user trust.

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. 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

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching maryland.gov

This scan found 22 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
65
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
72

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

Maryland.gov operates as an essential government entity website providing critical services and information to a broad audience including residents, businesses, and government employees. Its market position as the official state portal ensures high trust and authority. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on digital delivery of government functions and resources. The site integrates with multiple state agencies and partner domains, reflecting a robust partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators include continuous updates, integration of new services like MarylandBenefits.gov, and awards recognizing digital government excellence. The site’s operations emphasize accessibility, transparency, and constituent engagement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, secure form handling, and use of security headers. However, the absence of explicit Content-Security-Policy headers and lack of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure information represent areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, supporting data protection efforts. The site lacks a cookie consent mechanism, which is a minor compliance gap. Overall, the security maturity is strong for a government portal but could benefit from enhanced transparency and additional security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a Content-Security-Policy header to mitigate cross-site scripting and related attacks.
  2. Introduce a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user transparency.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information, such as a dedicated security email address.
  5. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to minimize potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
State of Maryland
Description
Official government portal providing access to state services, information, and resources for residents, businesses, visitors, and government employees.
Key services
Online Services, State Employee Resources, Job Listings, Business Resources, Government Information, Resident Services, Education, Visitor Information
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.6.0, Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft ScriptResource.axd, Clarity (Microsoft Clarity analytics), Google Custom Search Engine, Monsido (accessibility and compliance monitoring), Zaraz (Cloudflare analytics/marketing tool)
Frameworks
SharePoint Framework
Platforms
Microsoft SharePoint
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure forms with anti-forgery tokens (__REQUESTDIGEST)
  • Accessibility and privacy notices

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Zaraz
Marketing tools
Zaraz
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official state government website with comprehensive services and resources.
  2. Uses modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  3. Good accessibility and privacy practices.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  5. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, common for government domains.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism detected, which could be improved.
  7. No explicit security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Microsoft SharePoint, leveraging its robust CMS capabilities and integration with Microsoft technologies. It uses modern JavaScript libraries like jQuery and Bootstrap for UI responsiveness and interactivity. Analytics and tracking are implemented via Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager, providing comprehensive user behavior insights. The site demonstrates good accessibility features and mobile optimization. Performance is moderate, likely due to the volume of content and third-party integrations. Opportunities exist to optimize loading times and streamline scripts. The technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security headers and privacy controls.
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 maryland.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 maryland.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.