Skip to main content

Security report for massachusetts.edu

University of Massachusetts · Education · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The University of Massachusetts website serves as the official portal for the UMass system, providing comprehensive information about its campuses, educational programs, research initiatives, and community impact. The site is well-branded and professionally designed, targeting prospective and current students, faculty, staff, alumni, policymakers, and journalists. It positions UMass as a leading public university system in New England with nationally ranked campuses and significant research funding. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 and integrates modern analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, and Coveo Search. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with a moderate to fast performance profile. Security best practices are observed with HTTPS enforcement and cookie consent mechanisms, though explicit security headers and incident response policies are not prominently disclosed. The security posture is strong with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy compliance is well addressed with accessible privacy and cookie policies, including GDPR considerations. However, WHOIS data is unavailable due to .edu domain restrictions, which is typical for educational institutions, but limits domain registration transparency. Overall, the website reflects a mature digital presence with strong business credibility and trustworthiness. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security header implementation, publishing incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies, and improving direct contact information for security matters.

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

4 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Domain Expires Soon

      Domain expires in 15 days

      What to do: Renew domain registration before expiration

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

Keep watching massachusetts.edu

This scan found 21 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. See sample alerts.

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
77
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
60
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention massachusetts.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
12
Employees
0
Customers
8
Third parties
4
Weak passwords
17%

1 subdomain affected

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 massachusetts.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

UMass operates as a large, public educational institution with multiple campuses and a broad service offering including undergraduate and graduate education, research, and community engagement. Its market position is strong within New England and nationally recognized. The business model is primarily public funding and tuition-based, supplemented by research grants and philanthropic support. The target audience includes students, faculty, staff, alumni, and external stakeholders such as policymakers and industry partners. The website ecosystem includes official campus domains and foundation partners, indicating a well-integrated organizational structure.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms in place. Use of reputable analytics and marketing tools is evident, though care should be taken to monitor third-party scripts for vulnerabilities. The absence of explicit security policies and incident response information is a gap that could impact user trust and regulatory compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Security headers could be more explicitly implemented and documented. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved with formalized policies and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive HTTP security headers including X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures and improve transparency.
  4. Provide direct contact information for security incidents and abuse reporting.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Massachusetts
Description
The University of Massachusetts offers a college education and gives details about the UMass System, President’s Office, and campuses.
Key services
Higher education programs, Research initiatives, Community and economic impact, Campus services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Brightcove Video Player, Coveo Search
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern analytics and tracking scripts

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
Coveo Search
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed, comprehensive portal for the University of Massachusetts system.
  2. Content is rich with educational, research, and community impact information.
  3. Strong branding consistency and trust signals including testimonials and rankings.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Cookie consent and privacy policy are implemented and accessible.
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage; likely available on subpages.
  7. WHOIS data is not publicly available, consistent with .edu domain policies.
  8. No security or incident response policies explicitly found on the homepage.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, ensuring a robust content management framework. Integration with Coveo Search enhances site search capabilities. The use of Google Tag Manager and multiple analytics platforms indicates a mature approach to data collection and marketing. Video content is delivered via Brightcove, a professional video hosting platform. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident in meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by rich media content. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a high-quality user experience with opportunities for further optimization and security enhancements.
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 massachusetts.edu. 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 massachusetts.edu.

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.