Skip to main content

Security report for oge.gov

U.S. Office of Government Ethics · Government · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

85/100

Risk levelLow

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

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) operates as the official federal agency responsible for overseeing ethics programs within the executive branch of the U.S. government. The website serves as a comprehensive resource hub for federal employees, ethics officials, nominees to Senate-confirmed positions, and the general public. It provides access to financial disclosure reports, legal research, training resources, and public engagement opportunities, positioning OGE as a key authority in government ethics and transparency. Technically, the website leverages modern web technologies including the U.S. Web Design System, Google Fonts, and government analytics tools, hosted on an IBM Domino platform inferred from URL patterns. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, though performance is moderate. Security is robust with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections in place, but could be enhanced by enabling DNSSEC and adding advanced security headers. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks published security policies, incident response contacts, and a vulnerability disclosure program, which are recommended for transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the website is a trustworthy, professional government resource with high business credibility and a strong security posture. Strategic improvements in security policy transparency and DNS security would further enhance its reliability and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

2 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

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

Keep watching oge.gov

This scan found 14 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
95
Security headers
90
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
85

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

OGE holds a unique market position as the authoritative ethics oversight body for the U.S. executive branch, serving a specialized government sector. Its business model is regulatory and educational, providing oversight, guidance, and transparency to federal employees and the public. The agency's key services include ethics program reviews, financial disclosure management, legal research, and training. The website reflects a medium-sized government entity with a long operational history since 1997. Partnerships with USA.gov and Regulations.gov enhance its ecosystem. The site’s content and navigation cater effectively to its target audience, supporting government transparency and ethical governance.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS, domain transfer protections, and no evident vulnerabilities or sensitive data leaks. The absence of DNSSEC and advanced HTTP security headers represents an area for improvement. The lack of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies limits transparency and readiness for security events. Analytics usage is moderate and aligned with government standards, with no intrusive tracking detected. Overall, the site balances security and usability well but should adopt additional security policies and technical controls to meet best practices fully.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the oge.gov domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the website against common attacks.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and preparedness.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy best practices and improve user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Office of Government Ethics
Description
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) provides oversight and guidance on ethics for the executive branch of the U.S. government. It offers resources for the public, ethics officials, federal employees, and nominees to Senate-confirmed positions. The agency promotes ethical conduct and transparency in government service.
Key services
Ethics program oversight, Financial disclosure reports, Legal research on ethics rules, Public engagement and transparency, Training and education for ethics officials
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics, US Web Design System (USWDS)
Frameworks
US Web Design System
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ServerTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with no evident vulnerabilities

Analytics and tracking

Services
DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
DigitalGov Universal Federated Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government ethics agency website
  2. Comprehensive resources for ethics officials, federal employees, and the public
  3. Modern web design using USWDS and government analytics
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  5. Good security posture with HTTPS but missing some advanced security headers
  6. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners detected
  7. Contact information clearly provided with official email and phone
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies published
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on IBM Domino CMS, indicated by .nsf URLs, and uses the U.S. Web Design System for consistent government styling. It incorporates Google Fonts and government analytics scripts for performance and user insights. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with a clear navigation structure. Performance is moderate, likely due to legacy CMS constraints. No broken links or errors were detected. The technical stack is stable but could benefit from modernization efforts to improve speed and security header implementation.
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 oge.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 oge.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.