Skip to main content

Security report for portofoakland.com

Port of Oakland · Transportation · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Port of Oakland website serves as the official digital presence for a major transportation hub encompassing a seaport, airport, and commercial real estate operations. The site targets a broad audience including businesses, community members, and stakeholders in logistics and transportation. The business model is that of a government port authority providing essential infrastructure and community services. The website is built on a WordPress platform using Elementor and Yoast SEO, indicating a modern and maintainable technical infrastructure. Analytics are implemented via Google Tag Manager, supporting data-driven decision making. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS usage but lacks visible security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable anomaly that requires further investigation to confirm domain legitimacy. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy in appearance but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  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. 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';…

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

Keep watching portofoakland.com

This scan found 23 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
44
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
69

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

The Port of Oakland holds a significant position in the transportation sector within the United States, operating critical infrastructure for maritime and air transport. Its partnerships with related domains such as the Oakland Seaport and Oakland Airport reinforce its integrated service offerings. The business model focuses on infrastructure management, commercial leasing, and community engagement. The website content and structure support these functions effectively, though the lack of explicit contact information and policy documents may limit user trust and compliance readiness. Growth indicators include active event calendars and community relations content. Strategic partnerships and a clear branding approach position the Port as a key regional player in transportation and logistics.

Security posture

Security maturity is moderate. The site uses HTTPS and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics, but lacks explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, indicates gaps in compliance and security transparency. The missing WHOIS data raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy, which could impact trust. Recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and verifying domain registration details to strengthen security posture and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Publish an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to demonstrate security maturity.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure legitimacy and trust.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet compliance standards and improve user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Port of Oakland
Description
Official website of the The Port of Oakland, a vibrant seaport, a thriving airport and an array of commercial buildings and parks.
Key services
Seaport operations, Airport management, Commercial real estate leasing, Community relations and events
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Font Awesome
Frameworks
Elementor page builder
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by canonical URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO Premium
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed WordPress site using Elementor and Yoast SEO.
  2. Content is focused on Port of Oakland operations including seaport, airport, and community services.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage or linked content.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML content.
  5. External links include official related domains for Oakland Seaport and Oakland Airport.
  6. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking.
  7. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL status unknown but HTTPS URLs present.
  8. WHOIS data is missing or domain appears unregistered in the raw WHOIS output, which is unusual and requires attention.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO Premium plugin, indicating a modern CMS environment optimized for SEO. The use of Google Tag Manager enables flexible analytics and marketing integrations. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets including Font Awesome and jQuery. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design elements. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in asset loading and caching. No hosting provider information was detected. The site lacks explicit security headers and formal privacy or cookie management scripts. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy implementations.
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 portofoakland.com. 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 portofoakland.com.

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.