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 make government services and information easier to find for U.S. residents and citizens. It provides comprehensive access to government benefits, programs, agencies, and critical information such as passports, Social Security, taxes, voting, and immigration. The site is operated under the U.S. General Services Administration, reinforcing its authoritative position as a trusted government resource. The business model focuses on centralized information dissemination rather than commercial activities, serving a broad audience seeking government-related assistance and resources. Technically, the website is built on the Drupal CMS and leverages modern web technologies including the US Web Design System for consistent government branding and accessibility. It integrates analytics and tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager, CrazyEgg, and Siteimprove Analytics to monitor performance and user engagement. The site demonstrates excellent mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, ensuring a high-quality user experience across devices. From a security perspective, USA.gov enforces HTTPS with strong SSL configurations and includes essential security headers. While no critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, the site could improve by adding explicit Content-Security-Policy headers and publishing a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file. Privacy compliance is strong with a comprehensive privacy policy and security policies publicly available, though a cookie consent mechanism is not evident, possibly due to government exemptions. Overall, USA.gov exhibits a high level of trustworthiness and professionalism consistent with its role as a federal government portal. The lack of public WHOIS data is typical for .gov domains and does not detract from its legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around cookie usage, publishing incident response contacts, and further strengthening security headers to maintain and improve its security posture.

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

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 19 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
80
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 holds a dominant position as the official gateway to U.S. government information and services, targeting a wide demographic of U.S. residents and citizens. Its competitive advantage lies in its authoritative status, comprehensive content, and government backing. The portal does not operate on a commercial revenue model but serves as a critical public service platform. Partnerships are primarily internal within government agencies, with the U.S. General Services Administration as the parent entity. Growth indicators include continuous content updates and integration of modern web technologies. The site’s ecosystem includes related government domains and services, ensuring a cohesive user experience across federal resources.

Security posture

The security maturity of USA.gov is robust, with enforced HTTPS, secure form handling, and no detected vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data. The site follows best practices for government websites, including clear privacy and security policies. However, the absence of a published vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file and incident response contact information represents a gap in transparency and readiness. Compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR is indicated, though cookie consent mechanisms are not visible. The security culture appears mature but could benefit from enhanced communication of security processes and user data handling practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a Content-Security-Policy header to mitigate cross-site scripting risks.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner or mechanism to enhance privacy compliance and user awareness.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information to facilitate timely security communications.
  5. Continue regular security audits and update third-party libraries to maintain a strong security posture.

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, voting, immigration, and more, Contact information for elected officials and federal agencies
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, CrazyEgg, Siteimprove Analytics, 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 cookies and forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Siteimprove Analytics, CrazyEgg
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
CrazyEgg
Tracking pixels
Siteimprove Analytics
Marketing tools
CrazyEgg, Siteimprove Analytics
Transparency
basic

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 government services and information portal
  3. Strong HTTPS and security best practices
  4. No WHOIS data available publicly, typical for .gov domains
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  6. No cookie consent banner detected, may be due to government exemption
  7. Clear contact phone number provided
  8. No visible email addresses or contact forms on homepage
  9. Use of multiple analytics and tracking tools with moderate user tracking
  10. Excellent accessibility and mobile optimization
Technical notes

Notes

The website infrastructure is modern and well-maintained, utilizing Drupal CMS and the US Web Design System for consistent government branding and accessibility compliance. The integration of multiple analytics tools supports data-driven improvements. Performance is optimized with responsive images and preloading strategies. Accessibility features are well-implemented, ensuring compliance with government standards. Technical risks are minimal, though the absence of some security headers and cookie consent mechanisms suggests areas for modernization. Hosting details are not explicitly identified but are likely managed by government infrastructure providers.
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. 76/100Low26 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.