Skip to main content

Security report for visitgainesville.com

Visit Gainesville · Hospitality · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Visit Gainesville operates as a regional destination marketing organization promoting tourism in Gainesville and Alachua County, Florida. The website offers comprehensive information about local attractions, events, outdoor recreation, dining, and lodging, targeting tourists and local visitors. The business model focuses on tourism promotion and community engagement, positioning itself as a key regional tourism authority. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript libraries such as Swiper and Leaflet, and integrates marketing and analytics tools like Google Tag Manager and Crazy Egg. The site is mobile-optimized and SEO-friendly, with good content quality and consistent branding. Security-wise, the website uses HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms but lacks explicit security headers, a published security policy, and vulnerability disclosure information. WHOIS data is consistent with the website's regional focus, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could improve privacy and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

5 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. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching visitgainesville.com

This scan found 25 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
88
Average
54

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 website serves as a comprehensive tourism portal for Alachua County, highlighting diverse attractions and community features. Its competitive advantage lies in localized content and integration with county resources. The business model is non-commercial, likely funded by local government or tourism boards, focusing on visitor engagement and regional promotion. The absence of direct contact information and commercial transactions suggests a focus on information dissemination rather than e-commerce. Partnerships with local government (alachuacounty.us) are evident. Growth indicators include regular content updates and event promotion. Strategic observations include the need for enhanced privacy and security policies to align with best practices and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy is present, limiting transparency for security researchers. No incident response contacts or abuse emails are provided. The use of third-party tracking and advertising pixels introduces privacy considerations. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for an informational site but could be improved to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service.
  2. Add explicit security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to HTTP responses.
  3. Create and publish a security policy including incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure guidelines.
  4. Provide clear company contact information including emails and phone numbers for visitor support and security reporting.
  5. Review third-party tracking scripts for privacy compliance and consider minimizing user tracking.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Visit Gainesville
Description
Visit Gainesville promotes tourism and local attractions in Gainesville and Alachua County, Florida. It highlights parks, trails, events, dining, arts, culture, and outdoor recreation opportunities.
Key services
Tourism information, Event listings, Outdoor recreation guides, Dining and lodging recommendations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.6.2, jQuery 3.7.1, Swiper.js, Leaflet.js, Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, TTD Universal Pixel API
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with opt-in/opt-out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
The Trade Desk (TTD)
Tracking pixels
Crazy Egg, TTD Universal Pixel
Marketing tools
Crazy Egg
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a regional tourism portal for Gainesville and Alachua County, Florida.
  2. Content is rich with local attractions, events, and outdoor activities.
  3. Uses modern web technologies and tracking tools.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented with opt-in/out mechanism.
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in provided content.
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in HTML content.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  8. WHOIS data is consistent and supports legitimacy.
  9. No WAF or blocking detected; site is fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform with up-to-date core and plugins. It uses popular JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Swiper for sliders, and Leaflet for maps, indicating a rich interactive user experience. Google Tag Manager and Crazy Egg are used for analytics and user behavior tracking. The site loads external resources from reputable CDNs and font providers. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Mobile responsiveness is good, but accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced. No critical technical debt or deprecated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit in the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and engaging tourism website.
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 visitgainesville.com. 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 visitgainesville.com.

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.