Skip to main content

Security report for michigan.gov

State of Michigan · Government · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The State of Michigan official website serves as a comprehensive portal for government services, information, and resources targeted at residents, businesses, job seekers, and visitors. It provides access to online services, state agency information, employment opportunities, and news updates, positioning itself as the authoritative digital presence for Michigan state government. The site features consistent branding with official state logos and maintains a professional and user-friendly design. Technically, the website leverages modern web technologies including JavaScript frameworks, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook SDK, and Coveo search components, likely built on the Sitecore CMS platform. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, though performance is moderate. Security is robust with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but lacks some advanced security headers and explicit security policies. Privacy compliance is limited with no clear privacy or cookie policies detected on the main page, and no GDPR compliance indicators. Contact information for general or security inquiries is not explicitly provided, which could be improved. WHOIS data is incomplete, missing registrar and registrant details, but the domain is consistent with official government use. Overall, the website is a credible and authoritative government resource with good technical and security posture but would benefit from enhanced privacy disclosures, security policy transparency, and improved WHOIS data visibility to strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

6 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching michigan.gov

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. 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
72
Security headers
45
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
70

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 website represents a large government entity providing essential public services and information. Its market position is as the official digital gateway for Michigan state government, serving a broad audience including residents, businesses, and visitors. The business model is non-commercial, focused on public service delivery and information dissemination. Key services include online government transactions, employment resources, and public news. The site integrates with multiple state agencies and external resources, reflecting a complex partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators include active content updates and multimedia engagement. Strategic observations highlight the need for improved privacy and security transparency to align with evolving regulatory expectations.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is good, with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries detected. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of published security or incident response policies indicate room for improvement. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, limiting external security engagement. The incomplete WHOIS data reduces transparency but does not significantly impact operational security. Overall, the site demonstrates a solid baseline security posture appropriate for a government website but should enhance policy visibility and header configurations to meet best practices and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and establish a vulnerability disclosure program.
  4. Improve WHOIS data transparency by ensuring registrar and registrant information is publicly available and accurate.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and ensure compliance with data protection regulations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
State of Michigan
Description
Official website of the State of Michigan providing government services, information, and resources to residents, businesses, and visitors.
Key services
Online government services, State agency information, Job seeker resources, Business resources, Resident services, News and events
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, YouTube API, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook SDK, Coveo Search, Curator.io
Frameworks
Sitecore (implied by SXA references), Atomic Design components
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern JavaScript libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook SDK
Marketing tools
Curator.io
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. No WAF or blocking detected.
  3. WHOIS data is incomplete and lacks registrar and registrant info.
  4. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on main page.
  5. Strong presence of official state branding and social media links.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  7. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.
  8. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on main page.
  9. No security or incident response contact information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern CMS platform (Sitecore) with a modular design approach using Atomic Design components. It integrates multiple third-party services including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook SDK, and Coveo search, enhancing functionality and user engagement. The site is mobile-responsive and accessible, with good SEO practices evident in meta tags and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, likely due to rich multimedia content and external script dependencies. Technical risks include reliance on multiple external scripts which could impact load times and privacy. Opportunities exist to optimize performance and enhance security configurations to reduce technical debt and improve resilience.
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 michigan.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 michigan.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.