Skip to main content

Security report for ufl.edu

University of Florida · Education · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The University of Florida website represents a major public land-grant research university in the United States, offering educational and research services. The site is professionally designed with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and strong branding consistency. Technically, it leverages WordPress CMS with modern frameworks and SEO tools, ensuring good performance and mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced, though some security headers and formal policies like privacy and cookie notices are missing. The absence of WHOIS data is typical for .edu domains and does not detract from the site's legitimacy. Overall, the site is trustworthy and well-maintained, serving a broad audience including students, faculty, and the public.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

6 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 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 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 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching ufl.edu

This scan found 24 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
67
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
66

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

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 ufl.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
26,623
Employees
738
Customers
13,283
Third parties
12,602
Weak passwords
9%

Latest record dated 2026-06-15 · 409 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 ufl.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –login.ufl.edu2026-06-15
  • –login.ufl.edu2026-06-15
  • –warrington.video.ufl.edu2026-06-14
  • –login.ufl.edu2026-06-14
  • –mail.ufl.edu2026-06-14

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

The University of Florida holds a strong market position as a top five public land-grant research university, focusing on higher education, research, and community engagement. Its business model is public and educational, targeting students, researchers, and academic professionals. The website reflects a mature digital presence with strategic use of SEO and analytics tools. Partnerships and subsidiaries are not explicitly identified in the content. The institution's size is enterprise-level, consistent with its broad service offerings and national reputation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, it lacks explicit security headers and publicly available security policies or incident response contacts. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure mechanisms such as security.txt. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no detected privacy or cookie policies, which could be improved to align with GDPR and other regulations. The security score is good but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers and formal policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security and abuse email addresses.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and maintain security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Florida
Description
A top five public land-grant research university, the University of Florida creates a collaborative environment and accelerates future solutions.
Key services
higher education, research, community engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO Premium, Google Tag Manager, Bootstrap, Owl Carousel, Swiper, Visual Composer
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO Premium
Transparency
basic

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 rich content and structured data.
  2. No WHOIS data available, typical for .edu domains managed by educational registries.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No privacy or cookie policies detected in the analyzed content.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  6. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with a combination of popular plugins and frameworks including Yoast SEO Premium, Bootstrap, Owl Carousel, Swiper, and Visual Composer. The site is optimized for SEO with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. The technical implementation is modern and aligns with best practices, though there is room for improvement in security header implementation and privacy compliance.
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 ufl.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 ufl.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.