Skip to main content

Security report for acog.org

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 5 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

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) operates a comprehensive and professionally designed website serving as the premier membership organization for obstetrician-gynecologists. The site provides extensive resources including clinical guidelines, educational materials, practice management support, career resources, and advocacy information. The target audience includes healthcare professionals and patients interested in women's health. The organization holds a strong market position as a leading professional body in its sector. Technically, the website leverages modern JavaScript frameworks, integrates advanced search capabilities via Coveo, and employs multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, and New Relic for performance monitoring. The CMS appears to be Sitecore, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent mechanisms, indicating compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. While explicit security policies and incident response pages are not publicly found, the use of monitoring tools and privacy policies suggests a reasonable security posture. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and technical maturity. Recommendations include publishing explicit security headers, adding a vulnerability disclosure policy, and enhancing security contact information to further improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

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"

  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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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 acog.org

This scan found 20 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
75
Security headers
35
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

ACOG is positioned as a leading professional healthcare organization focused on obstetrics and gynecology. Its business model centers on membership services, educational content, advocacy, and professional support. Revenue streams likely include membership dues, educational program fees, and event registrations. The organization targets healthcare professionals and patients, with a broad ecosystem of partners including educational platforms, publishing houses, and career services. The website reflects a mature digital presence with strategic partnerships and a focus on member engagement and resource dissemination.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent, and integration of monitoring tools like New Relic. However, the absence of explicit security headers in the HTML and lack of a public security policy or incident response page represent areas for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities were detected in the content. The WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is justified for this type of organization. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Publish and enforce comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Create and publicly link a security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from external libraries.
  5. Enhance contact information for security-related inquiries to support incident response readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Description
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is the premier professional membership organization for obstetrician–gynecologists. The College’s activities include producing practice guidelines for providers and educational materials for patients, providing practice management and career support, facilitating programs and initiatives aimed at improving women’s health, and advocating on behalf of members and patients.
Key services
Practice guidelines production, Educational materials for patients, Practice management support, Career support, Advocacy
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, Coveo Search, LinkedIn Insight Tag, AdRoll, New Relic Browser Monitoring
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 monitoring tools (New Relic)

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic Browser, Google Analytics (inferred via GTM), Crazy Egg, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick, AdRoll
Tracking pixels
Crazy Egg, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Ads
Marketing tools
Coveo Search, MagnetMail
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
  3. Strong use of third-party analytics and marketing tools
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly presented with consent mechanism
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection or query failure
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  7. Site uses Sitecore CMS and Coveo search integration
  8. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found
  9. No explicit security policy or incident response page found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature CMS platform (Sitecore) and uses advanced search technology (Coveo). It integrates multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools, including Google Tag Manager, Crazy Egg, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel, and New Relic Browser monitoring. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. The technical stack reflects a modern, enterprise-grade infrastructure suitable for a large professional organization.
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 acog.org. 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 acog.org.

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.