Skip to main content

Security report for uconn.edu

University of Connecticut · Education · United States

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The University of Connecticut (UConn) is a large, well-established public research university with multiple campuses across Connecticut. The website reflects a professional and comprehensive digital presence, showcasing academic programs, research initiatives, campus life, and community engagement. The site targets prospective and current students, faculty, alumni, and the general public interested in higher education and research. The university maintains a strong market position as a leading educational institution in the region. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern technologies including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. The site is well-optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, with good SEO practices and structured data implementation. Hosting appears to leverage Microsoft Azure services, indicating a robust infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses standard security best practices, including cookie consent mechanisms and privacy policies compliant with GDPR. While explicit security headers are not fully visible in the HTML, the overall posture is strong with no evident vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The WHOIS data confirms domain legitimacy and consistency with the university's identity. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility, good privacy compliance, and a secure technical foundation. Strategic recommendations include enhancing explicit security headers, publishing a dedicated security policy, and ongoing monitoring of third-party scripts to maintain security and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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

1 finding 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

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

Keep watching uconn.edu

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
82
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
81
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention uconn.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
14,610
Employees
104
Customers
6,393
Third parties
8,113
Weak passwords
6%

Latest record dated 2026-06-07 · 604 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 uconn.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –bousa106.smp.av.uconn.edu2026-06-07
  • –connect.grad.uconn.edu2026-06-06
  • –tms.uconn.edu2026-06-06
  • –login.uconn.edu2026-06-06
  • –login.uconn.edu2026-06-04

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

UConn operates as a public university providing education, research, and community services. Its competitive advantages include a strong brand, multiple campuses, and a comprehensive academic and research portfolio. Revenue streams likely include tuition, state funding, research grants, and donations. The target customer segments are students, researchers, faculty, alumni, and community partners. Growth indicators include active campaigns and research initiatives. The partnership ecosystem includes affiliated campuses, health services, and foundations supporting fundraising and global programs. The university's operations are mature and well-integrated with a clear digital strategy supporting its mission.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and privacy compliance mechanisms in place. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The use of cookie consent banners and privacy policies indicates awareness of regulatory requirements. However, explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options are not visible in the HTML and should be verified server-side. Incident response and security policy pages are not found, suggesting room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Overall, the security culture appears positive but could benefit from enhanced documentation and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against clickjacking and MIME sniffing.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  4. Maintain and update privacy and cookie policies to ensure ongoing GDPR and other regulatory compliance.
  5. Enhance user awareness and trust by highlighting certifications, accreditations, or security best practices on the website.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
University of Connecticut
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Connecticut
Description
A top-ranked research institution with campuses across Connecticut, committed to education, research, and community impact.
Key services
Higher education, Research and discovery, Campus life and student services, Health services via UConn Health, Athletics
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome, jQuery
Frameworks
Gutenberg (WordPress block editor)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and analytics scripts asynchronously
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained university site with comprehensive content.
  2. Strong use of structured data and SEO best practices.
  3. Good privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  5. Multiple campus and subsidiary domains linked and consistent with university branding.
  6. Social media presence on major platforms is active and official.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS with Gutenberg blocks, leveraging popular libraries like jQuery and FontAwesome. Analytics and tracking are implemented via Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager, indicating a mature data collection strategy. Hosting appears to be on Microsoft Azure, providing scalability and reliability. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with good SEO metadata and structured data. Performance is fast with asynchronous loading of scripts and lazy loading of images. Technical debt appears low, but continuous monitoring of plugin and theme updates is recommended to avoid vulnerabilities.
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 uconn.edu. 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 uconn.edu.

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.