Skip to main content

Security report for usbr.gov

Bureau of Reclamation · Government · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Bureau of Reclamation is a longstanding U.S. government agency under the Department of the Interior, responsible for managing water and power resources primarily in the Western United States. The website serves as a comprehensive portal for information on dams, powerplants, water projects, environmental resources, and public recreation. It targets government entities, water resource managers, researchers, and the general public. The agency operates with an enterprise-level scale and maintains a strong market position as the primary federal water management authority in its region. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery, and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and DigitalGov Universal-Federated-Analytics. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and well-structured with clear navigation and good SEO practices. Hosting appears to be government-managed, ensuring reliability and compliance with federal standards. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and publishes a vulnerability disclosure policy, indicating a proactive security posture. However, explicit security headers are not clearly present, and there is no cookie consent mechanism, which could be improved for privacy compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data confirms the domain's legitimacy as a government entity with consistent registration information. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and provides valuable public services. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance and security header implementation would enhance its security posture and regulatory adherence.

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. 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

  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 usbr.gov

This scan found 21 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
45
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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 usbr.gov, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
14
Employees
0
Customers
0
Third parties
14
Weak passwords
0%

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 usbr.gov.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The Bureau of Reclamation holds a critical role in the U.S. government's water and power infrastructure management, particularly in the Western states. Its competitive advantage lies in its federal authority, extensive infrastructure portfolio, and comprehensive public engagement through detailed project information and recreation services. The business model is service-oriented, funded by government budgets and focused on sustainable resource management. The agency's target customers include federal and state agencies, local water districts, researchers, and the public. Growth indicators include ongoing infrastructure projects and public outreach. Partnerships with other government entities and public platforms like Recreation.gov enhance its ecosystem. The website reflects a mature, stable operation with a strong market presence and authoritative content.

Security posture

The Bureau of Reclamation's website demonstrates a moderate to strong security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and a vulnerability disclosure policy is publicly available, signaling openness to security research and incident reporting. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement in defense-in-depth. No incident response contact emails or security-specific contact channels were found, which could hinder rapid response to security issues. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Overall, the security posture is solid for a government site but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement explicit security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish clear incident response contact information, such as a security@ or abuse@ email address, to facilitate vulnerability reporting and incident handling.
  4. Consider creating and publishing a security.txt file to standardize security communication channels for researchers.
  5. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no vulnerabilities or privacy issues arise.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Bureau of Reclamation
Description
Managing water and power in the Western United States, including dams, powerplants, projects, and environmental resources.
Key services
Water management, Hydropower generation, Environmental resource management, Public recreation and land use, Research and technical services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery, Modernizr, Google Tag Manager, Universal-Federated-Analytics, Jssor Slider
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Vulnerability disclosure policy published
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of analytics scripts with async loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, DigitalGov Universal-Federated-Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (gtag.js), DigitalGov Universal-Federated-Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official US government website for the Bureau of Reclamation.
  2. Comprehensive navigation with detailed project, dam, powerplant, and regional information.
  3. Multiple social media channels linked for public engagement.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics for performance and user insights.
  5. No signs of malicious content or security blocking.
  6. Privacy policy present but no explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  7. Vulnerability disclosure policy available, indicating security awareness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a custom or government-managed platform using standard web technologies like HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with libraries such as jQuery and Modernizr enhancing functionality and compatibility. It integrates Google Tag Manager and DigitalGov analytics for user tracking and performance monitoring. The site uses a Jssor Slider for interactive content display. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts improving responsiveness. Mobile optimization and accessibility features are well implemented, supporting a broad user base including those with disabilities. The absence of a known CMS suggests a tailored solution, likely maintained by government IT staff. Technical risks include potential outdated libraries and missing security headers, which should be addressed to reduce attack surface and improve 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 72/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with usbr.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 usbr.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.