Skip to main content

Security report for opm.gov

U.S. Office of Personnel Management · Government · United States

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a federal government agency responsible for managing human resources policies and services for the civilian workforce of the United States government. The website serves a broad audience including federal employees, job seekers, HR practitioners, and federal agencies. It provides key services such as retirement management, healthcare and insurance information, policy oversight, and suitability investigations. The site is well-branded with consistent government identity and offers comprehensive content relevant to its mission. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS), ensuring good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO. The site loads at a moderate speed and uses secure HTTPS connections. However, explicit security headers are not visible in the provided data, and no cookie consent mechanism was detected, which may be due to government-specific compliance exemptions. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates strong HTTPS usage and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The lack of explicit security policies or incident response information is noted, as is the absence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. The WHOIS data is limited due to .gov domain privacy policies but aligns with the legitimacy of a U.S. government entity. Overall, the site is trustworthy and secure with room for improvement in transparency and security header implementation. The overall risk assessment is low, with the site presenting a professional, secure, and authoritative presence. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing security and incident response policies, and implementing visible cookie consent mechanisms to improve privacy compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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 opm.gov

This scan found 16 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

Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
75

Not counted

  • SSL/TLS: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

OPM holds a critical position as the primary federal agency managing civilian workforce policies and services. Its market position is unique and essential within the U.S. government sector. The agency's business model is service-oriented, focusing on policy delivery, workforce management, and benefits administration. Revenue streams are government-funded, with no commercial activities. The target customer segments include federal employees, retirees, HR professionals, and federal agencies. Growth indicators are tied to federal workforce needs and policy changes. The partnership ecosystem includes USAJOBS and other federal platforms. The agency maintains a strong operational presence with consistent branding and authoritative content.

Security posture

The security posture of the OPM website is robust with enforced HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information. The absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a minor gap. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which could be improved for transparency. Compliance with privacy policies is evident, though cookie consent mechanisms are not present, likely due to government exemptions. Overall, the security maturity is high for a government site, with recommendations to enhance header policies and publish security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and stakeholders.
  3. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  5. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Description
OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor a world-class workforce for the American people.
Key services
Retirement services, Healthcare and insurance, Policy and compliance oversight, Suitability and investigations, Agency services and workforce solutions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.6.3, Google Tag Manager, Universal-Federated-Analytics, Font Awesome 6.2.0, Typekit fonts, USWDS (U.S. Web Design System)
Frameworks
USWDS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure cookies likely (not explicitly visible)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Universal-Federated-Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Universal-Federated-Analytics
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 domain
  2. Comprehensive navigation and content structure
  3. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges
  4. Strong branding and trust signals
  5. Limited WHOIS data due to .gov domain privacy and registry policies
  6. No visible contact emails or phone numbers explicitly in HTML; contact via forms and social media links
  7. No cookie consent banner detected, which may be due to government exemptions
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and stable technology stack including jQuery 3.6.3, Google Tag Manager, and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) for consistent government styling and accessibility. Fonts are loaded via Typekit, and icons via Font Awesome 6.2.0. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple external scripts and analytics integrations. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected. Technical debt appears low, but improvements could be made in security header implementation and cookie consent management.
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 −2Low26 findingsView report
  2. 79/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with opm.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 opm.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.