Skip to main content

Security report for wellington.ca

County of Wellington · Government · Canada

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

County of Wellington operates as a regional government authority in Ontario, Canada, providing a broad range of municipal services to its residents and businesses. The website serves as a comprehensive portal for accessing information on garbage and recycling, roads and construction, child care, housing supports, social assistance, transportation, public safety, long-term care, and business development. The site targets local residents, businesses, and community stakeholders, positioning itself as a trusted government resource. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager and accessibility monitoring tools, ensuring a good user experience across devices. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and cookie consent mechanisms, although there is room for improvement in publishing explicit security policies and incident response details. The absence of WHOIS data is a notable gap but does not detract significantly from the overall legitimacy given the official .ca domain and consistent government branding. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around security policies and incident response, and verifying domain registration details for trust assurance.

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

3 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

  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 wellington.ca

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
50
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
71

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 wellington.ca, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
10
Employees
0
Customers
1
Third parties
9
Weak passwords
10%

1 subdomain 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 wellington.ca.

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 County of Wellington is positioned as a medium-sized government entity serving multiple municipalities and the City of Guelph. Its competitive advantage lies in comprehensive service delivery and community engagement. Revenue streams are typical of public sector entities, funded by municipal budgets and grants. The website supports business retention and expansion, workforce development, and community improvement initiatives, indicating a focus on economic development alongside social services. Partnerships with local municipalities and service providers are evident through linked domains and program collaborations. The digital presence is mature, supporting multiple languages and accessibility, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and transparency.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, robust security headers, and cookie consent compliance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the lack of a dedicated security policy or incident response contact reduces transparency and preparedness perception. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file, which are best practices for government websites. Overall, the security measures are adequate for the site's purpose but could be enhanced by formalizing security governance documentation and communication channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and user responsibilities.
  2. Establish and publicize an incident response contact or team to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate supply chain risks.
  5. Enhance accessibility monitoring and remediation efforts to maintain compliance with evolving standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
County of Wellington
Description
County of Wellington is a government entity providing municipal services to seven towns and townships and some services to the City of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. It offers programs and services including garbage and recycling, roads and construction, child care, housing supports, social assistance, transportation, public safety, long-term care, business development, and community engagement.
Key services
Garbage & Recycling, Roads and Construction, Child Care & Early Years, Housing Services & Supports, Social Assistance, Transportation, Public Safety, Long-Term Care, Business & Development, Community Engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome, Monsido accessibility monitoring, GTranslate
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a well-structured government portal for Wellington County, Canada.
  2. Content is comprehensive and professionally presented.
  3. No signs of malware, phishing, or suspicious content.
  4. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual for a government domain.
  5. Strong privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  6. Multiple official social media channels linked.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and accessibility monitoring.
  8. No explicit security incident response or vulnerability disclosure information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10, a modern and widely supported CMS, indicating a current and maintainable platform. Integration with Google Tag Manager and FontAwesome enhances functionality and design. Accessibility is supported via Monsido monitoring scripts, and multilingual support is provided through GTranslate. Performance is moderate, with optimizations possible in image delivery and script loading. The site is mobile responsive and SEO optimized with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. No critical technical debt or deprecated technologies were identified, suggesting a well-maintained infrastructure.
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 wellington.ca. 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 wellington.ca.

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.