Skip to main content

Security report for ut.edu

University of Tampa · Education · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

The University of Tampa website represents a well-established private educational institution offering undergraduate and graduate programs. The site is comprehensive, professionally designed, and targets prospective students, current students, faculty, staff, and alumni. It provides detailed information on admissions, financial aid, academics, campus life, and university services. The technical infrastructure leverages Adobe Experience Manager CMS, modern JavaScript libraries, and accessibility tools, indicating a mature digital presence. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced and use of tag management, but lacks explicit security headers and visible privacy policies. The absence of WHOIS data is typical for .edu domains, which are restricted to accredited educational institutions, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally maintained but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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 ut.edu

This scan found 17 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
82
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
81

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 ut.edu, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,857
Employees
22
Customers
1,504
Third parties
1,331
Weak passwords
12%

Latest record dated 2026-05-25 · 25 subdomains affected

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 ut.edu.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –sfs.ut.edu2026-05-25
  • –sfs.ut.edu2026-05-25
  • –spartanprint.ut.edu2026-05-03
  • –spartanprint.ut.edu2026-04-25
  • –sfs.ut.edu2026-02-14

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The University of Tampa operates as a private, residential university with a strong regional presence and global student reach. Its business model focuses on delivering quality education and student services, supported by a robust digital platform. The university maintains partnerships with authentication providers (Okta), library services, and dining management platforms, indicating a well-integrated ecosystem. The site’s content and navigation are tailored to multiple user segments, enhancing engagement and service delivery. Growth indicators include active promotion of virtual tours and digital admissions processes. The lack of visible contact information and privacy policies suggests areas for operational improvement in transparency and compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and integration of recognized analytics and tag management tools. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The site lacks a published vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact details, which are important for security maturity. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no clear cookie consent or privacy policy found, potentially exposing the university to regulatory risks. Overall, the security culture appears functional but could be enhanced with formal policies and improved header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  2. Implement and configure security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incident reporting and vulnerability disclosure to enhance incident response readiness.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency by including terms of service and data retention policies accessible to users.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Tampa
Description
The University of Tampa is a private, residential university located on the riverfront in downtown Tampa. Known for academic excellence, personal attention and real-world experience in its undergraduate and graduate programs, the University serves students globally. The majority of full-time students live on campus, and about half of UT students are from Florida.
Key services
Undergraduate degrees, Graduate degrees, Admissions services, Financial aid, Campus life services, Academic support, Career services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM (Dynamic Tag Management), YouTube iframe API, Monsido accessibility tools, Sharer.js
Frameworks
Adobe Experience Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for controlled script loading
  • Accessibility tools integrated

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Adobe Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Tag Manager
Tracking pixels
Adobe DTM, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Marketing tools
Sharer.js, Monsido
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a comprehensive university site with detailed academic, admissions, financial aid, campus life, and about us sections.
  2. No WHOIS data available publicly, typical for .edu domains with privacy protection.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the scanned content.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the main HTML content.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and accessibility tools.
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  7. Strong branding and consistent navigation structure.
Technical notes

Notes

The University of Tampa website is built on Adobe Experience Manager CMS, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and third-party integrations including Google Tag Manager and Adobe DTM for analytics and tag management. Accessibility is supported via Monsido tools, indicating a commitment to inclusive design. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to improve page load times. The technical stack is mature and well-maintained, though opportunities exist to improve security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms to reduce technical debt and regulatory risk.
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 ut.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 ut.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.