Skip to main content

Security report for nh.gov

State of New Hampshire · Government · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in DNS health.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

NH.gov is the official website of the New Hampshire State Government, serving as a centralized portal for residents, businesses, visitors, and government employees to access a wide range of state services and information. The site offers key services such as Paid Family & Medical Leave information, business gateway access, vendor resources, and contact information for state agencies. It is positioned as a trusted government resource with a clear focus on accessibility and user experience. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies including jQuery, Bootstrap, FontAwesome, and Google Analytics for tracking. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility features, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate and could benefit from further optimization. The presence of Google Translate enhances accessibility for non-English speakers. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data in its HTML content. However, it lacks some security headers and a formal security policy or vulnerability disclosure page. The incident response mechanism is partially addressed via a cyber incident reporting form. Privacy compliance is moderate, with a comprehensive privacy policy but no visible cookie consent mechanism. Overall, NH.gov presents a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and content quality appropriate for a government portal. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy consent, and transparency around security policies would further enhance its security posture and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
72/ 100 · Medium
GDPR outside view
87/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. DNS health

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

    • High

      Unregistered MX Record

      MX record 67.231.144.22 does not resolve (NXDOMAIN), so mail sent to the domain fails, and if that domain is unregistered anyone could register it and receive your mail.

      What to do: Remove the MX record or point it at your current mail provider.

      • RFC 5321 §5.1
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory
    • High

      Unregistered MX Record

      MX record 67.231.157.213 does not resolve (NXDOMAIN), so mail sent to the domain fails, and if that domain is unregistered anyone could register it and receive your mail.

      What to do: Remove the MX record or point it at your current mail provider.

      • RFC 5321 §5.1
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory

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

Keep watching nh.gov

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
82
Email security
85
DNS health
65
Network security
100
Website hygiene
80
GDPR outside view
87
Average
86

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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

NH.gov operates as an essential government entity providing digital access to New Hampshire state services. Its market position is that of an authoritative state government portal, serving a broad audience including residents, businesses, visitors, and government workers. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on information dissemination and facilitating access to government programs. Revenue streams are not applicable as it is a government site. The partnership ecosystem includes related state services such as the Business Gateway, E-ZPass, tourism, and emergency preparedness sites. Growth indicators include continuous content updates and integration of online services. The site maintains a consistent brand aligned with state government identity.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, it lacks several recommended security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate risks like clickjacking and cross-site scripting. The absence of a published security policy or vulnerability disclosure page limits transparency and may hinder coordinated vulnerability reporting. The incident response capability is partially addressed through a cyber incident reporting form, but no dedicated security contact emails are provided. Privacy compliance is moderate, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is secure but could improve in transparency and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and vulnerability disclosure page to improve transparency and facilitate responsible vulnerability reporting.
  4. Provide dedicated security contact emails (e.g., security@nh.gov) to streamline incident reporting and response.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
State of New Hampshire
Description
Web portal for New Hampshire State Government's community of agency websites and services.
Key services
Paid Family & Medical Leave information, Business Gateway services, Bids, Proposals, Contracts & Vendor Resources, State agency contacts, Online services and resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery, Bootstrap, FontAwesome, Google Analytics, Google Translate
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CAPTCHA not detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is an official state government portal
  2. Content is comprehensive and well-structured
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity
  4. Good use of modern web technologies
  5. Lacks explicit cookie consent mechanism
  6. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, ensuring a solid foundation for content management and security. It uses popular libraries such as jQuery and Bootstrap for UI components and responsiveness. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are employed for analytics and tracking, while Google Translate enhances accessibility. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident in meta tags and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, suggesting opportunities for optimization in asset delivery and caching. No critical technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected, indicating a well-maintained infrastructure.
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 nh.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 nh.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.