Skip to main content

Security report for usa.gov

USA.gov · Government · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

USA.gov is the official U.S. government web portal designed to provide citizens and residents with easy access to government benefits, services, and information. It serves as a comprehensive guide covering topics such as passports, Social Security, taxes, immigration, health, and more. The website is positioned as a trusted, authoritative source backed by the U.S. General Services Administration, targeting a broad general audience seeking government-related information and assistance. Technically, the site is built on Drupal CMS and leverages modern web technologies including the US Web Design System for accessibility and responsive design. It integrates multiple analytics and tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, and Siteimprove to monitor performance and user engagement. The site demonstrates excellent mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, ensuring a high-quality user experience. From a security perspective, USA.gov enforces HTTPS and uses a secure .gov domain, which inherently provides trust and legitimacy. While explicit security headers are not visible in the HTML content, the site follows best practices by not exposing sensitive data and securing forms properly. Privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, though a cookie consent mechanism is not evident. WHOIS data is unavailable likely due to .gov domain privacy norms, but the domain's nature and content strongly affirm legitimacy. Overall, USA.gov presents a low-risk profile with strong trust indicators, excellent content quality, and a mature technical infrastructure. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing a cookie consent mechanism, publishing vulnerability disclosure information, and maintaining up-to-date third-party scripts to further strengthen security and compliance.

Scanned

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

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

3 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 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 usa.gov

This scan found 18 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
95
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
76

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

USA.gov operates as a critical government information portal, providing centralized access to a wide array of federal services and benefits. Its market position is unique as the official U.S. government website, which grants it inherent competitive advantage and trust. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on public information dissemination rather than revenue generation. The site supports diverse user segments including citizens, residents, veterans, and businesses. Partnerships with other government agencies like GSA enhance its ecosystem. The presence of multiple analytics tools indicates a focus on continuous improvement and user engagement measurement. The site’s enterprise scale and consistent branding reflect a mature operational structure.

Security posture

The security posture of USA.gov is strong, leveraging HTTPS and the trusted .gov TLD to ensure secure communications and user trust. The absence of visible security headers in the HTML is a minor gap but does not critically undermine security given the domain's official status. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Privacy policies are comprehensive and indicate adherence to data protection standards including GDPR. However, the lack of a visible vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file suggests room for improvement in transparency and incident response readiness. Overall, the site demonstrates a high level of security maturity appropriate for a government portal.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Introduce a visible cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and improve security posture.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information to enhance trust and readiness for security events.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to mitigate risks from vulnerable dependencies.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
USA.gov
Description
USA.gov helps you locate and understand government benefits, programs, and information.
Key services
Government benefits finder, Information on passports, Social Security, taxes, Contact elected officials, Access to government agencies and services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, Siteimprove, Drupal CMS
Frameworks
US Web Design System (USWDS)
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure .gov domain
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with proper labels

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Crazy Egg
Tracking pixels
Siteimprove
Marketing tools
Qualtrics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content
  2. No WAF or security blocking detected
  3. Strong official government branding and trust signals
  4. Comprehensive navigation and topic coverage
  5. Use of multiple analytics and tracking tools with moderate user tracking
  6. No visible security headers detected in HTML but HTTPS is enforced
  7. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found
  8. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, typical for .gov domains
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal CMS and utilizes the US Web Design System framework, ensuring compliance with federal accessibility and design standards. It integrates multiple third-party analytics and tracking services including Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, Siteimprove, and Qualtrics, indicating a sophisticated approach to user behavior analysis and site optimization. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive images and accessible navigation. Performance appears fast with preloading of key assets. The lack of explicit hosting provider information limits full infrastructure assessment, but the use of government domains and services suggests hosting on secure government infrastructure. Overall, the technical implementation is modern, robust, and aligned with best practices for government websites.
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. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
  2. 76/100 −1Low27 findingsView report
  3. 77/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with usa.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 usa.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.