Skip to main content

Security report for nsf.gov

National Science Foundation · Government · United States

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

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency dedicated to supporting science and engineering research and education across the United States. The website serves as a comprehensive portal for funding opportunities, award management, and information about NSF's priorities and initiatives. It targets a broad audience including researchers, educators, students, entrepreneurs, and industry professionals. The NSF holds a strong market position as the primary federal agency for fundamental research funding in science and engineering. The site features consistent branding, professional design, and clear navigation, reflecting its authoritative government status. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 and leverages modern analytics and tracking tools such as Google Analytics, CrazyEgg, and DigitalGov Analytics. It employs HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and demonstrates good mobile optimization and accessibility standards. The site integrates USWDS for consistent government web design and uses various scripts for user engagement and analytics. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and includes a vulnerability disclosure policy, though explicit security headers are not fully visible in the HTML. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy policies are comprehensive, though cookie consent mechanisms are not prominently implemented. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing trust and transparency. Overall, the NSF website presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and technical maturity. It effectively supports its mission with a secure, accessible, and user-friendly platform. Strategic recommendations include enhancing visible security headers, implementing cookie consent for compliance, and publishing a security.txt file to improve incident response transparency.

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. 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 nsf.gov

This scan found 17 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
100
Security headers
60
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
80

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

NSF operates as a government agency funding scientific research and education nationwide. Its competitive advantage lies in its authoritative federal mandate and extensive funding programs. The business model revolves around grant-making and supporting STEM workforce development. The website reflects a mature digital presence with strong partnerships (e.g., Grants.gov, Research.gov) and a broad ecosystem of researchers and institutions. Growth indicators include recent funding announcements and initiatives in emerging fields like quantum chemistry and AI. The agency maintains a robust partnership ecosystem and transparent communication channels, reinforcing its leadership in the science funding domain.

Security posture

The NSF website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, no visible sensitive data leaks, and a published vulnerability disclosure policy. While explicit security headers are not fully confirmed, the use of a .gov domain and government hosting implies adherence to federal security standards. No incident response contacts or security.txt files were found, representing an area for improvement. Privacy compliance is good but could be enhanced with explicit cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site balances usability and security effectively, with no critical vulnerabilities detected.

Recommendations

  1. Publish and enforce explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Implement a visible cookie consent mechanism to enhance privacy compliance and user transparency.
  3. Create and publish a security.txt file to provide clear incident response contact information.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and ensure compliance.
  5. Enhance WHOIS data transparency if possible, or provide official domain registration information on the site for trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Science Foundation
Description
NSF is an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering in all 50 states and U.S. territories by funding research and education proposals.
Key services
Funding Search, Award Search, Research Funding Initiatives, Proposal Preparation and Submission Guidance, Award Management, Research and Education Support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, CrazyEgg, AddToAny, DigitalGov Analytics, USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of vulnerability disclosure policy
  • Use of official .gov domain

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, DigitalGov Analytics, CrazyEgg
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
CrazyEgg
Tracking pixels
DigitalGov Analytics, CrazyEgg
Marketing tools
AddToAny
Transparency
good

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 navigation and content structure
  3. Strong branding and consistent design
  4. Multiple social media channels linked
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  7. Clear contact information and policies available
  8. No WAF or blocking detected
  9. WHOIS data incomplete but domain legitimacy supported by .gov status
Technical notes

Notes

The NSF website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform, leveraging USWDS for consistent government design standards. It integrates multiple analytics and tracking services including Google Analytics, CrazyEgg, and DigitalGov Analytics. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by rich media content and multiple external scripts. The technical infrastructure reflects a well-maintained government digital asset with opportunities to improve security header visibility and streamline third-party dependencies.
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. 77/100 −3Low24 findingsView report
  2. 80/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with nsf.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 nsf.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.