Skip to main content

Security report for ojp.gov

Office of Justice Programs · Government · United States

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

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is a U.S. federal government agency under the Department of Justice, serving as a primary source of funding, research, and support to strengthen the justice system, law enforcement, and victim services. The website reflects a mature and authoritative presence with comprehensive content tailored to government agencies, law enforcement, and justice stakeholders. It offers extensive resources including grants, training, and program information, positioning itself as a critical federal resource in the justice sector. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and Verint SDK for analytics and user engagement. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with a professional design and clear navigation. The use of HTTPS and secure scripts indicates a strong technical foundation, though some security headers are not explicitly visible. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks visible security policies, incident response contacts, and cookie consent mechanisms, which are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is limited due to the .gov domain nature, but the domain's legitimacy is supported by consistent government branding and content. Overall, the website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and technical maturity suitable for a federal government entity. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing explicit security and incident response policies, and implementing cookie consent to improve privacy compliance and user trust.

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 ojp.gov

This scan found 16 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
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
79

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

OJP holds a strong market position as the federal government's leading justice program funding and research entity. Its business model revolves around providing grants, technical assistance, and research to various justice-related sectors. The agency's partnerships with bureaus such as BJA, BJS, NIJ, and others create a robust ecosystem supporting justice initiatives nationwide. The website's content and structure reflect a focus on transparency, accessibility, and service to government and community stakeholders. Growth indicators include active grant programs, training events, and multimedia resources. The agency's digital presence supports its mission effectively, though opportunities exist to enhance user engagement and compliance visibility.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with mandatory HTTPS, no visible sensitive data leaks, and use of reputable analytics and tracking services. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and lack of a public incident response or vulnerability disclosure page indicate room for maturity. No vulnerabilities or suspicious domains were detected. Privacy compliance is good but could be improved with cookie consent mechanisms. The WHOIS data limitations are typical for .gov domains and do not detract from trust. Overall, the security maturity is appropriate for a government site but should evolve to meet modern best practices fully.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Add a visible security policy and incident response contact page to enhance transparency and readiness.
  3. Deploy a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and improve performance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Office of Justice Programs
Description
OJP is the federal government’s leading source of funding and research to strengthen the justice system, support law enforcement, and enhance victim services.
Key services
Funding and grants, Research and statistics, Training and technical assistance, Victim services support
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google Custom Search Engine, jQuery DataTables, Verint Unified Web SDK
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure cookies and scripts
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, DAP DigitalGov Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense
Tracking pixels
Verint Unified Web SDK
Marketing tools
Google Custom Search Engine
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government website with .gov TLD
  2. Comprehensive content related to justice programs and funding
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  4. Good use of modern web technologies and accessibility standards
  5. No visible privacy or security policy pages on main domain but linked to DOJ policies
  6. No contact emails explicitly listed on homepage; contact form and physical address provided
  7. No cookie consent banner detected
  8. Social media presence on official platforms (Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube, LinkedIn)
  9. No WHOIS registrar or nameserver data available, typical for .gov domains managed by government registries
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and secure CMS platform, with integration of Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and Verint SDK for analytics and user engagement. The site uses Google Custom Search Engine for internal search functionality. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. The site uses multiple CSS stylesheets and JavaScript libraries including jQuery DataTables for tabular data presentation. Hosting details are not explicitly available, but the presence of .gov TLD and government branding suggests hosting on government infrastructure. The site is well-structured with proper meta tags and SEO elements, though some technical improvements in security headers and cookie management are recommended.
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 ojp.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 ojp.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.