Skip to main content

Security report for performance.gov

General Services Administration · Government · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Performance.gov is an official U.S. government website managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) that provides data-driven updates on the progress of federal agencies in achieving strategic government goals. The platform serves as a transparency and accountability tool for government performance, targeting policymakers, government officials, researchers, and the general public interested in federal strategy execution. The site offers archival data from multiple presidential administrations, enhancing its value as a historical and analytical resource. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including the US Web Design System (USWDS), Google Tag Manager, jQuery, and Lottie animations, ensuring a responsive, accessible, and user-friendly experience. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices and demonstrates good SEO practices. However, explicit security headers are not visibly configured, and there is no public incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which are areas for improvement. From a security perspective, the site benefits from HTTPS enforcement and the inherent trust of a .gov domain, which is tightly regulated. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Privacy compliance is moderate; while a comprehensive privacy policy is present, there is no visible cookie consent mechanism. Contact information is limited but includes a verified government support email. Overall, Performance.gov is a credible, authoritative government resource with strong business credibility and technical maturity. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing a cookie consent mechanism, and publishing incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to further strengthen trust 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

4 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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Potential Subdomain Takeover

      Subdomain dev.performance.gov points to unregistered service gsa-elb-ecs-dev-wild-perfgov-1-712716598.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com

      What to do: Remove or fix CNAME record to prevent subdomain takeover

      • WSTG-CONF-10
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory

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

Keep watching performance.gov

This scan found 20 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
55
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
72

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

Performance.gov occupies a unique position as a government transparency and performance tracking platform, leveraging its .gov domain and affiliation with the GSA to establish trust and authority. Its business model is service-oriented, focusing on information dissemination rather than commercial revenue. The site supports multiple U.S. government sectors through data sharing and archival access, fostering inter-agency collaboration and public engagement. The partnership ecosystem includes key government data portals and evaluation platforms, reinforcing its role in the federal digital ecosystem. Growth indicators include archival expansions and integration with other government initiatives. The platform's strategic advantage lies in its official status and comprehensive coverage of government performance metrics.

Security posture

The security posture of Performance.gov is solid, benefiting from HTTPS encryption and the controlled nature of .gov domain registrations. The absence of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security suggests room for enhancement in defense-in-depth strategies. No signs of vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found, indicating good operational security hygiene. However, the lack of publicly available incident response or vulnerability disclosure information may limit transparency in security management. Privacy compliance is partial, with a comprehensive privacy policy but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature security baseline appropriate for a government information portal but should adopt additional best practices to improve resilience and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Introduce a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency regarding tracking.
  3. Publish an incident response policy and establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to foster security transparency and community engagement.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels to minimize privacy risks and ensure compliance with data protection standards.
  5. Enhance contact information with additional support channels and consider publishing a dedicated security contact email to improve incident reporting and response.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
General Services Administration
Description
Performance.gov provides data-driven progress updates from the teams responsible for U.S. strategy execution, offering a window into Federal agencies’ efforts to deliver a smarter, leaner, and more effective government.
Key services
Tracking U.S. government strategic goals, Providing archived administration performance data, Offering data on customer experience and public participation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, jQuery, US Web Design System (USWDS), Lottie Player, Isotope JS
Frameworks
US Web Design System
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by .gov and Google Tag Manager usage)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), LinkedIn Insight, Twitter Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight, Twitter Widgets, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Marketing tools
LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Widgets
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government website with .gov domain
  2. Content focused on tracking government performance goals
  3. No signs of adult or questionable content
  4. No visible forms collecting user data
  5. Uses modern web technologies and USWDS framework
  6. Includes multiple external links to official government resources
  7. Privacy policy present but no explicit cookie consent mechanism
  8. WHOIS data is privacy protected or unavailable, typical for .gov domains
  9. No security.txt or explicit incident response information found
Technical notes

Notes

Performance.gov is built using a modern and robust technical stack centered around the US Web Design System, ensuring compliance with federal accessibility and design standards. The use of Google Tag Manager and various analytics tools indicates a mature approach to data collection and performance monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized and loads efficiently, contributing to a positive user experience. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or government-managed platform. The absence of explicit hosting provider information is typical for government sites, which often use secure federal hosting environments. Technical risks are minimal, but the lack of visible security headers and incident response information represents potential areas for technical debt and modernization.
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 performance.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 performance.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.