Skip to main content

Security report for protectmichild.com

Michigan Secretary of State · Government · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ProtectMIChild is an official Michigan government website operated by the Michigan Secretary of State's office. It provides a free registry service allowing Michigan parents to register their children's electronic contact points to block adult-themed and inappropriate content from reaching them. The service targets families within Michigan and aims to protect children from exposure to ads related to alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and pornography. The website is positioned as a trusted government resource with clear branding and official endorsements. Technically, the website uses basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without modern frameworks or CMS platforms. The site is moderately optimized for performance and accessibility but lacks advanced mobile responsiveness and modern SEO features. No analytics or advertising scripts were detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. However, security headers and HTTPS configuration details were not available, suggesting room for improvement in security posture. From a security perspective, the site shows no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of security policies, incident response contacts, and cookie consent mechanisms indicates gaps in compliance and user privacy transparency. The WHOIS data for the domain is missing, which is unusual for an official government domain and may indicate privacy protection or registry issues. Despite this, the website content and linked official domains strongly support its legitimacy. Overall, ProtectMIChild presents a trustworthy and valuable government service with good business credibility but could enhance its technical and security implementations. Strategic improvements in HTTPS enforcement, security headers, privacy compliance, and incident response transparency are recommended to strengthen its security posture and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

  2. 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

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

Keep watching protectmichild.com

This scan found 19 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
67
Security headers
85
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

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

ProtectMIChild operates as a government service under the Michigan Secretary of State, targeting parents and families in Michigan. Its competitive advantage lies in being an official state-backed registry that helps block inappropriate electronic content for children. The business model is service-oriented, providing free registration and compliance tools for digital advertisers. Revenue streams are likely government-funded rather than commercial. The target customer segment is Michigan residents with children. The partnership ecosystem includes official Michigan government domains and support services. Growth indicators are not explicit but the service aligns with increasing digital safety concerns. Operationally, the site is straightforward with limited technical complexity, focusing on accessibility and ease of use.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, the lack of HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and published security policies indicates compliance gaps. There is no evidence of GDPR or other privacy regulation adherence beyond a basic privacy policy link. Incident response readiness is not demonstrated through contact channels or security.txt files. The security culture appears minimal but adequate for a government informational site. Enhancements in secure communications, header implementation, and privacy transparency would improve the security posture significantly.

Recommendations

  1. Enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and ensure all pages load securely.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  4. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
  5. Improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility features to meet modern standards and broaden user accessibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Michigan Secretary of State
Description
The Michigan Children's Protection Registry website allows Michigan parents to register their children's electronic contact points for protection from inappropriate messages.
Key services
Child electronic contact point registration, Blocking adult-themed content, Compliance center for digital advertisers, Complaint filing against advertisers
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML, CSS, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is an official Michigan government service for child protection registry
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for .com domains
  3. No HTTPS or security headers information available from provided data
  4. No cookie or privacy consent mechanisms detected on site
  5. Content is safe and targeted at general audience, specifically Michigan parents
  6. No forms with visible input fields in provided HTML snapshot
  7. External links point to official Michigan government domains and support portal
  8. No social media links or company contact emails found
  9. Site uses basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without modern frameworks
  10. Accessibility and mobile optimization are basic but present
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using traditional HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without modern frameworks or CMS platforms. The code quality is basic but functional, with multiple alternate stylesheets for text resizing indicating some accessibility consideration. Performance is moderate with no heavy scripts or external dependencies detected. The site lacks advanced SEO optimizations and mobile responsiveness is basic. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not discernible from the provided data. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking technologies, which aligns with privacy-focused government services. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist to improve security and user experience.
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 protectmichild.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 protectmichild.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.