Skip to main content

Security report for visitguam.com

Hospitality · N/a

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.visitguam.com serves as a comprehensive tourism portal for Guam, offering detailed information on events, places to stay, cultural insights, and travel planning resources. It targets tourists and travelers interested in exploring Guam, positioning itself as a primary or official tourism information source. The site features a well-structured navigation system and rich content relevant to hospitality and travel. Technically, the site employs a moderate technology stack including jQuery, RequireJS, Foundation framework, and various third-party analytics and marketing tools. The site appears mobile-optimized with good SEO practices but lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which impacts compliance. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS usage inferred but no explicit security headers detected. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain legitimacy, although the website content is professional and consistent with its business purpose. Overall, the site is functional and informative but would benefit from improved transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

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 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 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 visitguam.com

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
65
Security headers
45
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
72

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 business operates in the hospitality sector, focusing on tourism promotion for Guam. Its business model revolves around providing travel information, event listings, and cultural content to attract visitors. The site likely generates revenue through partnerships, advertising, and possibly affiliate marketing, as indicated by the presence of ad networks and tracking pixels. The target audience includes international and local tourists, military visitors, and business travelers. The website's comprehensive content and navigation suggest a mature digital presence, although the lack of WHOIS data and privacy policies may affect trust. The partnership ecosystem includes major analytics and marketing platforms but no direct partner domains were identified. Strategic observations include the need for enhanced privacy compliance and clearer business contact information to strengthen credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS usage and asynchronous loading of analytics scripts, reducing some risk of performance impact. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security indicates room for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, suggests gaps in compliance and readiness. The WHOIS data unavailability is a significant concern for domain trustworthiness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a public tourism site but requires enhancements in policy transparency, header implementation, and domain registration clarity to mitigate risks and improve user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Verify and publish domain WHOIS information to improve legitimacy and trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and tracking scripts to minimize vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Swim in warm turquoise waters, sample local cuisine, and explore cultural sites and scenic trails across Guam’s unforgettable landscape.
Key services
Event listings, Travel planning, Accommodation information, Cultural information, Things to do and attractions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.2.4, RequireJS, Foundation 5.5.0, FontAwesome 4.6.3, Slick Carousel 1.5.8, Cloudinary Video Player, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Quantcast, Facebook Pixel, CrowdRiff
Frameworks
Foundation
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (inferred from canonical URL https://www.visitguam.com/)
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and other analytics scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Microsoft Clarity, Quantcast
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (AW-589293162, AW-847107180)
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, Quantcast
Marketing tools
Act-On (marketing.visitguam.org)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a comprehensive tourism portal for Guam with extensive navigation and content sections.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for an active domain.
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. Multiple analytics and marketing scripts are used, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content.
  6. No security headers or explicit security policies detected in the HTML content.
  7. Website uses multiple third-party libraries and frameworks, indicating moderate technical complexity.
  8. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a combination of legacy and modern web technologies including jQuery 2.2.4, RequireJS for module loading, and Foundation 5.5.0 for responsive design. It integrates multiple third-party services for analytics (Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Quantcast) and marketing (Google Ads, Facebook Pixel, Act-On). The site appears to be built on the Simpleview CMS platform, commonly used for tourism websites. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading and responsive design elements. However, the use of older jQuery versions and Foundation 5.5.0 indicates some technical debt. There is no evidence of advanced accessibility features beyond basic responsiveness. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Opportunities exist to modernize the tech stack, improve accessibility, and enhance security configurations.
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 visitguam.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 visitguam.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.