Skip to main content

Security report for usembassy.gov

Government · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website usembassy.gov is a government domain established in 1999, indicating a long-standing official presence. However, the current website content is inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error with minimal HTML content, which blocks any meaningful content or metadata extraction. The domain is hosted on Akamai's CDN infrastructure and uses privacy protection typical for government domains. Due to the blocked content, no privacy policies, contact information, or business descriptions are available for analysis. The lack of accessible content severely limits the ability to assess the site's technical maturity or security posture beyond domain registration data. Overall, the site appears legitimate based on WHOIS data but is currently inaccessible for detailed evaluation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching usembassy.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. 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
100
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
68

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

The domain usembassy.gov is clearly positioned as a government entity, likely representing U.S. embassies or consular services. The domain age and hosting provider support its credibility. However, no business model details, services, or partnership information are available due to the blocked content. The absence of contact information or policies on the site limits insights into operational transparency or customer engagement. The domain's .gov TLD and long registration history suggest a stable government service presence.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the lack of accessible content and security headers data. The domain uses Akamai name servers, which is a positive indicator of robust hosting infrastructure. The 403 Forbidden response suggests access control is enforced, but no further security headers or SSL configuration details were provided. No vulnerabilities or security policies are detectable from the provided data. The site lacks visible privacy or cookie policies, which is a compliance gap if the site were publicly accessible.

Recommendations

  1. Investigate and resolve the 403 Forbidden error to allow public access or authorized access for analysis.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Provide accessible contact information and security incident response contacts.
  4. Implement and expose security headers to enhance security posture and transparency.
  5. Regularly review and update WHOIS and DNSSEC configurations to maintain domain security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website returns a 403 Forbidden error with minimal HTML content, indicating access is blocked or restricted. No WAF vendor-specific challenge detected but content is inaccessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No metadata, scripts, forms, or external links found in the HTML content.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No contact information or social media links available.
  5. Domain WHOIS data indicates a long-established government domain with privacy protection.
  6. Site is hosted on Akamai CDN infrastructure.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  8. Content and technical quality cannot be assessed due to blocked content.
  9. Analysis incomplete due to blocked content; further inspection requires access permissions.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Akamai CDN infrastructure, indicating a modern and scalable hosting environment. However, the site currently returns a 403 Forbidden error with minimal HTML content, preventing any assessment of the technology stack, CMS, or frontend frameworks. No metadata, scripts, or analytics tools were detected. The domain uses multiple Akamai name servers but DNSSEC is not enabled, which could be improved for DNS security. The lack of accessible content and metadata limits SEO and accessibility evaluation.
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 usembassy.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 usembassy.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.