Skip to main content

Security report for phila.gov

City of Philadelphia · Government · United States

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

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

The City of Philadelphia's official website serves as a comprehensive portal for municipal services, information, and resources for residents and businesses. It holds a strong market position as the authoritative source for city government services, including permits, licenses, tax payments, emergency alerts, and job opportunities. The site targets Philadelphia citizens and local businesses, providing a broad range of public services and community engagement tools. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and leverages modern web technologies such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Highcharts, and the Foundation framework. It demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and includes trusted .gov domain indicators, enhancing user trust. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and employs security best practices, but lacks some advanced security headers and explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. Privacy compliance is basic, with a clear privacy policy and terms of use but no visible cookie consent mechanism or GDPR-specific compliance features. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, with minor areas for improvement in privacy compliance and security transparency. The domain registration data aligns well with the official government entity, supporting high legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
80/ 100 · Low
GDPR outside view
72/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

      Tracking cookies set without a consent banner

      Observed on the first page load as a new visitor, before any consent choice; Guard does not click the banner. The site set 7 analytics or marketing cookies: Google Analytics (_gid, _gat_UA-860026-1, _gat_UA-122314474-54, _ga); Google (_gcl_au). No consent banner or consent platform was detected (Guard scans from the EU, so EU-only banners would have been shown).

      What to do: Load analytics and marketing tags only after the visitor opts in, using a consent banner that offers accept and reject with equal prominence.

  2. Website hygiene

    Outdated scripts and CMS versions are how most small-business sites get compromised; a security.txt file tells researchers where to report what they find.

    • High

      Outdated JavaScript library with known vulnerabilities

      moment.js 2.18.1 (detected in the page) has 3 published vulnerabilities: CVE-2017-18214, GHSA-446m-mv8f-q348, CVE-2022-24785, GHSA-8hfj-j24r-96c4, CVE-2022-31129, GHSA-wc69-rhjr-hc9g.

      What to do: Upgrade moment.js to 2.29.4 or later and retest the pages that use it.

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

Keep watching phila.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. 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
97
Security headers
53
Email security
95
DNS health
95
Network security
100
Website hygiene
70
GDPR outside view
72
Average
83

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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

The City of Philadelphia operates as a government entity providing essential municipal services to its residents and businesses. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status and comprehensive service offerings, including public safety, tax administration, property management, and community engagement. Revenue streams are primarily public funding and taxes, with no commercial sales. The target customer segments are local citizens, businesses, and visitors. The website ecosystem includes partnerships with city council, district attorney, sheriff, and public transit authorities, reflecting a broad governmental collaboration. Strategic observations highlight a focus on transparency, accessibility, and community support through digital channels.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, valid SSL certificates, and trusted domain indicators. It uses security-related meta tags and avoids exposing sensitive data in the HTML. However, it lacks explicit Content Security Policy headers, a security.txt file, and published incident response contacts, which are best practices for vulnerability management and transparency. No vulnerabilities or malicious content were detected. Compliance gaps exist in GDPR cookie consent and detailed privacy controls. The security culture appears focused on foundational protections but could enhance transparency and user privacy controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a Content Security Policy (CSP) header to mitigate cross-site scripting and related attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Enhance HTTP security headers by adding X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  5. Provide explicit incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
City of Philadelphia
Description
Official website of the City of Philadelphia, includes information on municipal services, permits, licenses, and records for citizens and businesses.
Key services
Municipal services, Permits, Licenses, Records, Emergency alerts, Job listings, Property search, Tax filing and payment
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Highcharts, WordPress, jQuery, Foundation Framework, Google Translate
Frameworks
Foundation
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-related meta tags
  • Trusted .gov domain

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official City of Philadelphia government website with extensive municipal service information.
  2. Uses modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  3. Strong branding and consistent design.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  5. Lacks explicit cookie consent mechanism.
  6. No visible security.txt or incident response contact info.
  7. WHOIS data confirms legitimate government ownership.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using the Foundation front-end framework, integrating analytics and user behavior tracking tools such as Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity. It uses modern JavaScript libraries and external resources hosted on reputable CDNs. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple external scripts and rich content. There is an opportunity to optimize loading times and reduce third-party dependencies. The technical infrastructure is stable and supports a large-scale government website with extensive content and user interaction.
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 phila.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 phila.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.