Skip to main content

Security report for umaryland.edu

The University of Maryland, Baltimore · Education · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) is a prominent public university specializing in health, law, and human services education, research, patient care, and public service. It holds a strong market position as the state's leading institution in these sectors, serving a diverse audience including students, healthcare professionals, legal experts, and public service workers. The website reflects the institution's commitment to excellence and accessibility, featuring comprehensive content and professional branding. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Tag Manager, and accessibility tools, hosted on a CMS platform likely TerminalFour. The site demonstrates good performance, mobile optimization, and strong accessibility compliance, ensuring a positive user experience across devices. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and integrates security best practices, though explicit security headers could be more visible. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies, and GDPR considerations. The absence of WHOIS data is noted but likely due to .edu domain registration norms, not detracting from the site's legitimacy. Overall, the site presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and technical maturity, supporting its role as a trusted educational institution.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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 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

    • 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 umaryland.edu

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
45
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
70

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

UMB operates as a large public university with a focus on professional and graduate education in health, law, and human services. Its business model centers on education, research, and public service, supported by state funding and partnerships. The university targets students, professionals, and researchers, leveraging a strong brand and comprehensive service offerings. The website's integration with analytics and social media indicates active engagement and marketing efforts. The lack of WHOIS transparency is offset by the institution's established reputation and sector. Growth indicators include ongoing research initiatives and public service programs, positioning UMB competitively within the education sector.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of security best practices, and integration of accessibility and privacy compliance tools. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were found. However, explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options are not clearly present and should be verified. The use of third-party analytics and tracking scripts is managed with asynchronous loading, minimizing performance impact. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, suggesting an area for improvement. Overall, the site maintains a secure environment appropriate for an educational institution handling sensitive user data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against clickjacking and MIME sniffing.
  2. Publish a clear vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact to improve transparency and security readiness.
  3. Regularly audit third-party libraries and scripts for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
  4. Enhance privacy compliance disclosures with detailed data retention policies and user rights information.
  5. Continue to invest in accessibility features and monitor compliance with evolving standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
The University of Maryland, Baltimore
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The University of Maryland, Baltimore
Description
The University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) is the state’s public health, law, and human services university devoted to excellence in professional and graduate education, research, patient care, and public service.
Key services
professional and graduate education, research, patient care, public service
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.7.1, Font Awesome 6 Pro, Google Tag Manager, Accessibly accessibility widget, Typekit fonts, Google Fonts (Noto Sans), JavaScript, CSS3, HTML5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with async loading
  • Accessibility widget for compliance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager), LinkedIn Insight
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official university website with comprehensive content and professional design
  2. Strong focus on accessibility and compliance
  3. Use of modern web technologies and analytics
  4. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity
  5. WHOIS data unavailable, possibly due to .edu domain registration policies
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern and robust technical infrastructure, utilizing jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Tag Manager, and accessibility widgets. It is likely managed via TerminalFour CMS, indicating enterprise-level content management capabilities. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and accessibility, with comprehensive meta tags and SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous script loading and optimized assets. Technical risks are minimal but include the need for explicit security header implementation and continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies. The infrastructure supports the university's mission effectively, with opportunities for further modernization and security enhancements.
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 umaryland.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 umaryland.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.