Skip to main content

Security report for recordsofrights.org

National Archives · Government · United States

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Records of Rights is an official online and physical exhibition platform managed by the US National Archives, showcasing historical records related to American civil rights struggles. The website serves an educational purpose targeting the general public and researchers interested in American history and rights. It is supported by the National Archives and Records Administration and partners such as the National Archives Foundation. Technically, the site uses a custom or unknown CMS with common JavaScript libraries like jQuery and Modernizr, hosted by DreamHost. The site is moderately optimized for mobile and SEO, with good content quality and clear navigation. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, and does not have a cookie consent mechanism. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no explicit GDPR indicators or cookie consent. Business credibility is high due to official branding and consistent content. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe for general audiences.

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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching recordsofrights.org

This scan found 27 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
20
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
48

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 website operates as a government-affiliated educational platform, leveraging archival content to engage a broad audience interested in civil rights history. Its business model is non-commercial, focusing on public education and archival preservation. The partnership with the National Archives Foundation and presence on multiple social media platforms enhance its outreach. The domain age and hosting provider align with a stable, medium-sized government project. The lack of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel via suggestion forms, typical for government sites. The site’s market position is strong within the niche of archival exhibitions, with no direct commercial competitors.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and domain transfer is restricted, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are published, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries based on the provided content. Privacy compliance is limited, lacking cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR-specific disclosures. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a public informational site but could be improved to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
  2. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations such as GDPR.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and provide incident response contact information.
  5. Consider adding explicit contact emails or phone numbers for user support and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Archives
Description
Explore records of the National Archives documenting the ongoing struggle of Americans to define, attain, and protect their rights.
Key services
Online exhibits, Museum exhibits, Educational resources
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.10.2, Modernizr 2.6.2, jPlayer, Google Analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is an official archival exhibition platform for the US National Archives.
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and thematic exhibits.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected.
  5. No visible security headers in HTML content; potential area for improvement.
  6. WHOIS privacy protection is used but justified given the nature of the site.
  7. Social media presence is linked to official National Archives accounts.
  8. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed; contact is via suggestion form.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional tech stack with jQuery, Modernizr, and jPlayer for media handling, indicating a somewhat dated but stable infrastructure. Hosting is provided by DreamHost, a reputable provider. The site is moderately optimized for mobile devices and SEO, with proper meta tags and responsive design elements. Performance is moderate, with no explicit indicators of slow loading but no advanced optimization techniques detected. Accessibility is basic, with no ARIA roles or advanced accessibility features evident. The lack of a known CMS suggests a custom-built platform, which may require dedicated maintenance resources. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security practices.
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 recordsofrights.org. 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 recordsofrights.org.

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.