Skip to main content

Security report for research.gov

National Science Foundation · Government · United States

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Research.gov is the official grants management platform for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) community, providing comprehensive services including proposal preparation, submission, award management, reviews, panels, and financial administration. The platform serves researchers, reviewers, and institutions engaged with NSF, positioning itself as a critical government service with a strong market presence in the research funding sector. The website is well-branded, consistent, and clearly communicates its purpose and services to its target audience. Technically, the site employs a mature technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, DataTables, and integrates multiple analytics and user experience tools such as Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, ForeSee, and WebTrends. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although some modern security headers are not explicitly detected. Performance is moderate, suitable for an enterprise government platform. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and promotes multi-factor authentication, indicating a strong security posture. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not evident, and no visible cookie consent mechanism is present, which could impact privacy compliance. The WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, but this does not detract from the site's legitimacy given its government affiliation. Overall, Research.gov is a trustworthy, professional, and secure platform essential for NSF grant management. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance and security header implementation would further enhance its security posture and user trust.

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

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

      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

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

Keep watching research.gov

This scan found 18 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
90
Security headers
80
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
78

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

Research.gov operates as a government service platform under the National Science Foundation, targeting the U.S. research community involved in NSF grants. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status and comprehensive integration of proposal, review, award, and financial management services. Revenue streams are government-funded, with no commercial transactions evident on the site. The platform supports a broad user base including researchers, reviewers, and administrative staff, indicating a large enterprise scale. Partnerships with NSF and related government entities are evident, and the site maintains a strong ecosystem of related NSF domains. The platform's strategic focus on user experience and analytics suggests ongoing efforts to optimize service delivery and stakeholder engagement.

Security posture

The security maturity of Research.gov is solid, with mandatory HTTPS, promotion of multi-factor authentication, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The absence of some security headers and a cookie consent mechanism are notable gaps that could affect compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. The use of multiple analytics and tracking tools indicates moderate user tracking, balanced by the site's government nature and implied privacy standards. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from enhanced privacy and security policy disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and explicitly configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen defense-in-depth.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner or mechanism to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and improve security posture.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and tracking tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and privacy risks.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
National Science Foundation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
National Science Foundation
Description
NSF's Research.gov is where to prepare and submit proposals, manage awards, and participate in reviews and panels.
Key services
Proposal preparation and submission, Reviews, panels, and meetings management, Awards and reporting, Fellowships and opportunities, Financial management, User account and role administration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.7.0, Bootstrap 3.3.7, DataTables 1.13.6, ForeSee (customer experience analytics), Google Tag Manager, Digital Analytics Program (DAP), WebTrends
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of MFA banner to promote multi-factor authentication
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Crazy Egg, ForeSee, WebTrends, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Crazy Egg
Tracking pixels
Crazy Egg, ForeSee, WebTrends, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Marketing tools
Crazy Egg, ForeSee, WebTrends, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official U.S. government domain with .gov TLD
  2. Comprehensive grants management platform for NSF community
  3. No signs of phishing or malware
  4. No visible forms collecting sensitive data on homepage
  5. Strong use of analytics and tracking for user experience improvement
  6. No explicit cookie consent banner found
  7. WHOIS data is not publicly available, likely due to privacy or registry policy
  8. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a stable and mature technology stack with jQuery, Bootstrap, and DataTables for UI and interactivity. Integration with multiple analytics and user experience platforms indicates a data-driven approach to service improvement. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured content. Performance is moderate, suitable for an enterprise government platform, though opportunities exist to modernize frameworks and enhance security headers. Hosting details are not explicit, but the use of .gov domain and HTTPS suggests government-managed infrastructure with strong baseline security.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 64/100Medium23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with research.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 research.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.