Skip to main content

Security report for sf.gov

City and County of San Francisco · Government · United States

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in DNS health, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The City and County of San Francisco operates SF.gov as its official government portal, providing residents, businesses, and visitors with access to a wide range of public services and information. The website features comprehensive content including services like job search, marriage licensing, birth certificate requests, and contact information for city staff. It also prominently displays profiles of elected officials, reinforcing its authoritative position as a government resource. The site targets a broad audience including local citizens, government employees, and businesses operating within San Francisco. Technically, SF.gov is built on modern web technologies including React and Next.js, with a CMS likely based on Wagtail. The site demonstrates excellent mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for user tracking and performance monitoring. The website is served over HTTPS with strong security headers, indicating a robust security posture. However, it lacks a visible cookie consent mechanism and explicit security or incident response policies, which are areas for improvement. From a security perspective, the site follows best practices such as enforcing HTTPS, implementing security headers, and avoiding exposure of sensitive data. No vulnerabilities or suspicious domains were detected. The WHOIS data is limited, showing no registrar or creation date, but this is typical for government domains using privacy protection. The domain's legitimacy is supported by consistent branding and official content. Overall, SF.gov presents a secure, professional, and trustworthy online presence for the San Francisco government. Strategically, the site should enhance privacy compliance by implementing a cookie consent banner and publishing clear security policies and incident response contacts. Adding a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file would further improve transparency and trust. Regular audits of third-party scripts and tracking tools are recommended to maintain security and privacy standards. These steps will strengthen the site's compliance posture and user trust while maintaining its role as a critical public service platform.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Critical

      Domain Expired

      Domain expired 61 days ago

      What to do: Renew domain registration 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 sf.gov

This scan found 22 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
85
DNS health
30
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
59
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

SF.gov serves as the digital gateway for the City and County of San Francisco, positioning itself as the authoritative source for municipal services and information. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status, comprehensive service offerings, and integration with related government domains such as careers.sf.gov and sfbos.org. The business model is non-commercial, focused on public service delivery and civic engagement. Revenue streams are not applicable as it is a government entity. The target customer segments include residents, city employees, businesses, and visitors. Growth indicators include continuous content updates and multi-language support, reflecting inclusivity and responsiveness. The partnership ecosystem includes various city departments and agencies, enhancing service integration. Operationally, the site demonstrates maturity with modern technology adoption and strong content governance.

Security posture

The security maturity of SF.gov is high, evidenced by HTTPS enforcement, comprehensive security headers, and absence of exposed sensitive data. The site uses modern frameworks and avoids vulnerable libraries, reducing attack surface. However, gaps exist in privacy compliance, notably the absence of a cookie consent mechanism and explicit security policies. Incident response readiness is unclear due to lack of published contacts or procedures. Data protection practices appear sound, but transparency could be improved with a vulnerability disclosure program. The security culture is implied to be strong given the official nature and professional presentation, but explicit indicators are limited. Overall, the site balances strong technical security with opportunities to enhance compliance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a visible cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page with clear contact information.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to improve transparency.
  4. Regularly audit and monitor third-party scripts and tracking tools for security and privacy compliance.
  5. Enhance user education on privacy and security practices through accessible website content.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
City and County of San Francisco
Description
Services and information from the City and County of San Francisco.
Key services
Job search, Marriage licensing, Birth certificate requests, City staff information, Contact the City
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure headers present
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected
  • Forms use proper input types and labels

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and no blocking.
  2. Content is professionally presented with clear navigation and multi-language support.
  3. Strong presence of official government branding and elected officials' profiles.
  4. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious content.
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via forms and official pages.
  6. No cookie consent banner detected, which may affect privacy compliance.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks ensures good performance and responsiveness.
Technical notes

Notes

SF.gov is built on a modern, scalable infrastructure leveraging React and Next.js frameworks, supported by a Wagtail CMS backend. The site demonstrates excellent performance and mobile responsiveness, with optimized images and preloaded fonts. Accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA labels are implemented, enhancing usability for all users. SEO is supported through proper meta tags and structured data. The integration of Google Tag Manager and Analytics enables effective monitoring of user behavior and site performance. Technical risks are minimal, with no detected outdated or vulnerable libraries. Opportunities exist to further modernize by adopting enhanced privacy tools and expanding security transparency measures.
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 sf.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 sf.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.