I built an open-source scanner and pointed it at small U.S. government websites. The same five security mistakes kept showing up: weak HTTPS, no CSP, leaky testI built an open-source scanner and pointed it at small U.S. government websites. The same five security mistakes kept showing up: weak HTTPS, no CSP, leaky test

What I Learned from Scanning Dozens of Small Government Websites (and Why the Same Bugs Keep Coming)

Legacy CMSes, tiny IT teams, and the same five security mistakes on repeat.

Most of the security work I do is not glamorous.

There are no red team hoodies, no zero-days, no dramatic “we hacked the mainframe” moments. Instead, there’s a lot of curl, headers, and very old PHP.

I’m based in Chicago and I’ve been building web apps for 15+ years. At some point last year, I decided to scratch an itch: I wanted a small open-source tool that would quickly tell me how “healthy” a public website is, security‑wise. Nothing fancy – just:

  • does HTTPS really work?
  • are the obvious leaks closed?
  • are we doing anything about scripts from half the internet?

Naturally, I pointed this tool at the kinds of domains most people forget about: small-town websites, school districts and county portals in the U.S. The stuff that runs on old CMS installs and “if the page loads, it’s probably fine” energy.

On one of the first school district sites I checked, I found a phpinfo.php page still sitting on a test subdomain that was never cleaned up. The homepage looked perfectly normal. Under the hood, it was basically a live x‑ray of the entire stack.

After a few dozen scans like that, a pattern emerged. Different vendors, different hosting, different logos… but almost exactly the same mistakes.

This post is not about the tool. It’s about those recurring mistakes and what they say about how we build (and maintain) public‑facing sites.

\

Pattern #1: HTTPS is there, but not really trusted

Almost every site I tested redirected to HTTPS. That’s a huge improvement compared to a decade ago.

But in a surprising number of cases, there was no HSTS at all.

From the browser’s point of view, that first visit is still “HTTP is allowed.” An on‑path attacker sitting on the same Wi‑Fi can quietly downgrade it, inject whatever they want, and then forward the request to the real site. The user sees a familiar URL and a working page. Nothing screams “you’re being messed with.”

The fix is literally one header:

Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload

Yet it’s missing on many sites simply because nobody ever picked it up as a requirement. The vendor shipped “it works on HTTPS,” the client said “great, thanks,” and that was the end of the story.

\

Pattern #2: No CSP on pages full of third‑party scripts

Most of the sites I looked at have had multiple lives.

Different contractors added:

  • analytics
  • chat widgets
  • form providers
  • random “we need this by Friday” embeds

A few years later, it’s a soup of inline scripts and external JS that nobody really owns.

Without a Content Security Policy (CSP), the browser will happily execute whatever responses come back from those third‑party domains. If one of them gets compromised, injected code runs on a government domain, in a context where users are used to trusting what they see.

I get why CSP is often missing. It looks scary, and the first attempt tends to break something. But even a simple starter policy like this:

Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://www.googletagmanager.com https://www.google-analytics.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; img-src 'self' data:; frame-ancestors 'none';

already cuts down the blast radius a lot.

The problem isn’t the lack of silver‑bullet tech. It’s that no one ever said, “This site must have a CSP,” so it just never happened.

\

Pattern #3: Leaky files and forgotten test stuff

This one still makes me pause every time I see it.

From the scans, I kept running into things like:

  • .env files with database credentials
  • .git/ directories exposing repo history
  • phpinfo.php on “temporary” subdomains
  • backup archives sitting in the web root
  • random /old/, /test/ or /backup/ directories that were meant to be removed “later”

Attackers don’t need to be creative here. They just need a script that walks common paths.

And again, the fixes are boring:

  • block access to known‑sensitive patterns at the web server or WAF
  • add “no test artifacts / backups in web root” to your deployment checklist
  • schedule a periodic scan specifically looking for these paths

This isn’t deep, subtle technical debt. It’s more like leaving keys in the door because nobody added “check the door” to their routine.

\

Pattern #4: Session cookies that trust too much

Another repeat offender: session cookies with defaults from a different era.

I’d often see things like:

  • no Secure flag
  • no HttpOnly
  • no SameSite
  • combined with a lack of basic headers (X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, etc.)

In most modern stacks, you can fix 80% of this in one place, centrally. On PHP/Laravel, for example, tweaking session and cookie settings in the framework config, plus a few headers at the web server level, already raises the bar.

Yet it rarely happens by default, especially on sites that were “finished” years ago and only get touched when content changes.

\

Pattern #5: Client‑side libraries from another decade

Finally, the frontend. A lot of these sites still rely on:

  • old jQuery (1.x / 2.x)
  • outdated Bootstrap
  • abandoned plugins from who‑knows‑where

I have sympathy for this one. If you’re the only IT person in a small organization, with no staging environment and no time, touching a core JS lib feels risky. If everything “kind of works,” why poke it?

The problem is that this code often has known CVEs and no upstream support. At some point, not touching it becomes the bigger risk.

The teams that do move forward usually do it in small steps: upgrade the core library, test the critical user journeys, be ready to roll back. That’s boring, methodical work — exactly the kind of work that gets deprioritized when there’s always another fire to put out.


\

Why these mistakes keep repeating

After a while, I stopped being surprised by individual issues and started thinking more about the environment that produces them.

A few patterns stood out:

  • No clear owner. The website lives between “IT” and “communications”. Vendors maintain it, departments own the content, security is “everyone’s job” and therefore nobody’s.
  • No baseline. There’s no short, agreed list of “every public site we run must at least do X, Y and Z” (enforce HTTPS, have CSP, block obvious leaks, etc.).
  • No feedback loop. Once the site is launched, nobody regularly scans it for regressions or new issues. It just quietly ages in place.

You don’t need a nation‑state adversary for things to go wrong here. A misconfigured plugin, a compromised third‑party script or a sloppy backup can be enough.

\

So what can we actually do?

If you’re a developer or consultant working with public‑sector clients (or any small org with similar constraints), here’s what I’d suggest.

None of this requires a new platform. It does require installing a bit of discipline around boring things:

  1. Write down a tiny baseline. Literally a one‑page document that says: \n “Every public‑facing site we run must:
  • enforce HTTPS with HSTS after a transition period,
  • have at least a basic CSP,
  • block access to config/test/backup artifacts,
  • use secure/HTTP‑only/SameSite cookies,
  • avoid severely outdated client‑side libraries.”
  1. Make it part of the contract. If you’re the vendor, include this baseline in your proposal. If you’re the client, ask for it. Make it part of “done,” not a nice‑to‑have.
  2. Automate the checks. Use whatever you like: curl, custom scripts, open‑source scanners, CI jobs. The exact tool matters less than the fact that it runs regularly and someone looks at the results.
  3. Prioritize by impact, not aesthetics. A site that handles payments or logins should get attention before the news archive. Align your energy with where real risk lives.
  4. Plan for small, continuous upgrades. Make it normal to upgrade libraries, tweak headers and refine CSP in small increments instead of waiting 5–10 years for a “big redesign.”

None of this will make headlines. That’s kind of the point. Quiet, unglamorous work on “boring” security details is what keeps a lot of people safe without them ever noticing.

\

Closing thoughts

I started scanning these sites with CivicMeshFlow mostly because I was curious. I kept going because I realized how many residents depend on them every day — to pay bills, read school announcements, check on local services.

Most of the issues I see aren’t there because people don’t care, but because nobody ever gave them time, tools or a baseline.

If you build or maintain public‑facing sites, especially for small organizations, you’re probably closer to this problem than you think. And you have more influence than you might realize: sometimes, all it takes to start changing the pattern is one person asking, “What’s our baseline?” and being willing to write it down.


\ Author bio (for HackerNoon):

I’m Nick Tkachenko, founder and CTO of CivicMeshFlow, an open‑source project focused on improving the security of small local government websites in the U.S. Based in Chicago, I’ve been building PHP/Python apps for 15+ years. Learn more at https://civicmeshflow.com

\ \ \ \ \ \

Market Opportunity
WHY Logo
WHY Price(WHY)
$0,00000001529
$0,00000001529$0,00000001529
0,00%
USD
WHY (WHY) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Trump Cancels Tech, AI Trade Negotiations With The UK

Trump Cancels Tech, AI Trade Negotiations With The UK

The US pauses a $41B UK tech and AI deal as trade talks stall, with disputes over food standards, market access, and rules abroad.   The US has frozen a major tech
Share
LiveBitcoinNews2025/12/17 01:00
Egrag Crypto: XRP Could be Around $6 or $7 by Mid-November Based on this Analysis

Egrag Crypto: XRP Could be Around $6 or $7 by Mid-November Based on this Analysis

Egrag Crypto forecasts XRP reaching $6 to $7 by November. Fractal pattern analysis suggests a significant XRP price surge soon. XRP poised for potential growth based on historical price patterns. The cryptocurrency community is abuzz after renowned analyst Egrag Crypto shared an analysis suggesting that XRP could reach $6 to $7 by mid-November. This prediction is based on the study of a fractal pattern observed in XRP’s past price movements, which the analyst believes is likely to repeat itself in the coming months. According to Egrag Crypto, the analysis hinges on fractal patterns, which are used in technical analysis to identify recurring market behavior. Using the past price charts of XRP, the expert has found a certain fractal that looks similar to the existing market structure. The trend indicates that XRP will soon experience a great increase in price, and the asset will probably reach the $6 or $7 range in mid-November. The chart shared by Egrag Crypto points to a rising trend line with several Fibonacci levels pointing to key support and resistance zones. This technical structure, along with the fractal pattern, is the foundation of the price forecast. As XRP continues to follow the predicted trajectory, the analyst sees a strong possibility of it reaching new highs, especially if the fractal behaves as expected. Also Read: Why XRP Price Remains Stagnant Despite Fed Rate Cut #XRP – A Potential Similar Set-Up! I've been analyzing the yellow fractal from a previous setup and trying to fit it into various formations. Based on the fractal formation analysis, it suggests that by mid-November, #XRP could be around $6 to $7! Fractals can indeed be… pic.twitter.com/HmIlK77Lrr — EGRAG CRYPTO (@egragcrypto) September 18, 2025 Fractal Analysis: The Key to XRP’s Potential Surge Fractals are a popular tool for market analysis, as they can reveal trends and potential price movements by identifying patterns in historical data. Egrag Crypto’s focus on a yellow fractal pattern in XRP’s price charts is central to the current forecast. Having contrasted the market scenario at the current period and how it was at an earlier time, the analyst has indicated that XRP might revert to the same price scenario that occurred at a later cycle in the past. Egrag Crypto’s forecast of $6 to $7 is based not just on the fractal pattern but also on broader market trends and technical indicators. The Fibonacci retracements and extensions will also give more insight into the price levels that are likely to be experienced in the coming few weeks. With mid-November in sight, XRP investors and traders will be keeping a close eye on the market to see if Egrag Crypto’s analysis is true. If the price targets are reached, XRP could experience one of its most significant rallies in recent history. Also Read: Top Investor Issues Advance Warning to XRP Holders – Beware of this Risk The post Egrag Crypto: XRP Could be Around $6 or $7 by Mid-November Based on this Analysis appeared first on 36Crypto.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 18:36
Truoux: In the Institutionalized Crypto Markets, How Investors Can Strengthen Anti-Scam Awareness

Truoux: In the Institutionalized Crypto Markets, How Investors Can Strengthen Anti-Scam Awareness

As the crypto market draws increasing attention from institutions, investors must remain vigilant, guard against various scam tactics, and rationally choose compliant
Share
Techbullion2025/12/17 01:31