City of Santa Monica · Government · United States
Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.
The City of Santa Monica operates an official government website providing comprehensive information on city services, programs, and resources, including library services. The website targets residents and visitors seeking municipal information and public services. It maintains a strong market position as the authoritative source for Santa Monica city information. The site features a well-structured navigation system and uses modern web technologies such as Blazor, Google Analytics, Microsoft Application Insights, and Microsoft Clarity to monitor performance and user engagement. The website is mobile-optimized and accessible, with consistent branding and trust indicators such as official social media links and a .gov domain. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses reputable analytics tools with anonymized tracking. However, it lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, incident response contacts, and published security frameworks, which are areas for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected, and the WHOIS data confirms the domain's legitimacy as a government entity. Overall, the site demonstrates a good security posture but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and explicit security policies. The technical infrastructure is modern and leverages multiple third-party services for analytics and user experience enhancements. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, and SEO practices are adequately implemented. The site’s content is safe for general audiences, focusing on public services without any adult or questionable content. Strategic recommendations include publishing privacy and cookie policies, implementing security headers, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure process to strengthen trust and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1
What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
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
This scan found 21 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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention smpl.org, from OffSeq Breach.
2 subdomains affected
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for smpl.org.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with smpl.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review smpl.org.