Skip to main content

Security report for state.gov

United States Department of State · Government · United States

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

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

The United States Department of State website serves as the official digital presence for the U.S. government's foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. It provides comprehensive information on U.S. foreign affairs, visa and passport services, and news updates relevant to American citizens and international partners. The site is well-positioned as the authoritative source for U.S. diplomatic information and services, targeting a broad audience including travelers, students, employees, and businesses. Technically, the website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform, leveraging industry-standard tools such as Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and Brightcove for video content. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, with a professional and consistent design that enhances user experience. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and employs best practices in script management and data protection. While explicit security headers are not fully confirmed, the overall posture is strong with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy compliance is robust, with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms in place. Overall, the website reflects a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and operational maturity consistent with a major government entity. Strategic recommendations include enhancing explicit security header implementation, maintaining up-to-date software, and improving visibility of incident response contacts to further strengthen security and trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of state.gov. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 100 · Low
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. 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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 state.gov

This scan found 16 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. See sample alerts.

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
55
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
82

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 Department of State operates as a critical government agency responsible for U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Its market position is unique as the primary U.S. government entity in this sector, with no direct commercial competitors. The business model focuses on public service, regulatory functions, and international engagement. Revenue streams are government-funded, with services including visa issuance, passport management, and diplomatic communications. The target customer segments include U.S. citizens, foreign nationals seeking visas, international governments, and global partners. Growth indicators are tied to geopolitical developments and government priorities. The partnership ecosystem includes other government agencies and international organizations. The website's extensive content and linked domains reflect a broad operational scope and strategic communication efforts.

Security posture

The Department of State website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS and strong SSL certificates. The use of reputable third-party analytics and tag management tools is well controlled. No exposed credentials or sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of visible vulnerable libraries and the use of updated CMS components indicate good maintenance practices. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not clearly present and should be verified and implemented if missing. Incident response contact information is not prominently displayed, which could be improved. Overall, the site aligns well with government security standards and frameworks such as NIST, but continuous monitoring and enhancements are recommended.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  2. Regularly audit and update all third-party scripts and CMS plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  3. Enhance visibility and accessibility of incident response and security contact information on the website.
  4. Ensure all forms include anti-CSRF tokens and robust input validation to prevent injection attacks.
  5. Develop a long-term security strategy focusing on continuous compliance, user privacy, and trust enhancement.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
United States Department of State
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
United States Department of State
Description
Leading U.S. foreign policy to advance the interests and security of the American people.
Key services
Foreign policy leadership, Visa and passport services, International relations and diplomacy, Public information and news dissemination
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, YouTube API, Brightcove Video Player, Gravity Forms, FontAwesome, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress CMS
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 secure third-party analytics and tag managers
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Digital Analytics Program (DAP)
Marketing tools
GovDelivery
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government website with .gov domain
  2. Comprehensive and professional content related to US foreign policy
  3. Strong branding and consistent design
  4. Multiple social media verified accounts linked
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics
  6. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges
  7. WHOIS data is restricted, typical for government domains
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and Brightcove video integration. The site uses Yoast SEO for optimization and FontAwesome for icons. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in load times. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, supporting a wide range of users. The technical infrastructure appears well-maintained with no critical technical debt observed. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and streamline third-party script usage to reduce potential risks. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified but the site uses government-standard hosting likely with robust infrastructure.
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. 82/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with state.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 state.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.