Skip to main content

Security report for organdonor.gov

Health Resources & Services Administration · Government · United States

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

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website organdonor.gov is an official U.S. government platform managed by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) under the Department of Health & Human Services. It serves as a comprehensive resource for organ, eye, and tissue donation information, targeting both the general public and healthcare professionals. The site provides educational content, registration guidance, statistics, and professional outreach materials, positioning itself as a trusted authority in the organ donation space. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10 and leverages modern web technologies including the US Web Design System, Google Analytics, and YouTube integration. It demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate. The hosting environment is consistent with government infrastructure, ensuring reliability and security. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs several best practices, though explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options were not confirmed. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is strong with a comprehensive privacy policy linked from the site, though a cookie consent mechanism is not evident. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy typical for .gov domains, but the domain's legitimacy is supported by consistent branding and authoritative content. Overall, organdonor.gov presents a professional, secure, and trustworthy online presence with minor areas for improvement in cookie consent and explicit security header implementation. It effectively fulfills its mission as a government resource for organ donation awareness and education.

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

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 organdonor.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. 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
80
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
82

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

Organdonor.gov operates as a government public service platform providing vital information and resources related to organ donation. Its market position is strong as the official U.S. government source, which lends significant credibility and trust. The business model focuses on education and awareness rather than commercial revenue, supported by government funding. The site targets a broad audience including potential donors, recipients, families, and healthcare professionals. Partnerships with HRSA and HHS enhance its ecosystem. The presence of outreach materials and professional resources indicates a strategic approach to stakeholder engagement and community involvement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, no visible sensitive data leaks, and use of secure iframe sandboxing. The absence of explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and Referrer-Policy is a minor gap. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, but cookie consent mechanisms are lacking despite tracking scripts. Incident response and security policy pages are not found, which could be improved for transparency. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected. Overall, the site aligns well with government security standards but could enhance user privacy controls and incident communication.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a visible cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and Referrer-Policy to strengthen protection against clickjacking and referrer leakage.
  3. Publish dedicated incident response and security policy pages to improve transparency and user trust.
  4. Include contact information for a Data Protection Officer or privacy contact to comply with data protection best practices.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and ensure compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Health Resources & Services Administration
Description
Provides information on organ, eye, and tissue donation, including how to register, resources, FAQs, and stories from recipients.
Key services
Organ donor registration information, Educational resources about donation, Professional outreach materials, Donation statistics and data transparency
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, YouTube iframe API, MotionPoint translation scripts, Boomerang performance monitoring
Frameworks
US Web Design System (USWDS)
Platforms
YouTube
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 iframe sandboxing
  • No inline sensitive credentials

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Boomerang
Marketing tools
Qualtrics survey tool
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 organ donation information site
  2. Uses modern CMS and web standards
  3. No signs of phishing or malware
  4. No WHOIS data available publicly, typical for .gov domains
  5. Good privacy and security posture with room for minor improvements
  6. No cookie consent banner detected despite tracking scripts
  7. Clear navigation and comprehensive content
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses Drupal 10 CMS with the US Web Design System framework, ensuring modern, accessible, and responsive design. Integration with Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and YouTube APIs supports analytics and multimedia content. Performance monitoring is implemented via Boomerang. Hosting appears to be on government infrastructure, providing reliability and security. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata. Minor technical improvements include explicit security headers and cookie consent implementation. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust and well-suited for a government public information portal.
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 organdonor.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 organdonor.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.