Skip to main content

Security report for centura.org

CommonSpirit Health · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CommonSpirit Health's Mountain region website serves as a comprehensive healthcare portal connecting patients and communities across Colorado, Kansas, and Utah. The site offers extensive information about healthcare services, provider search, scheduling, and patient tools including a dedicated patient portal. The content is professionally presented with a strong emphasis on community impact and patient-centered care. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10 with integrations of Google Maps API, Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, and Bizible for analytics and marketing. The website is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, though some security headers and explicit security policies could be improved. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection, which is typical for large healthcare organizations. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and well-maintained, supporting a large healthcare network.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 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

    • 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 centura.org

This scan found 19 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
40
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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 represents a large healthcare entity operating in multiple US states, offering a broad range of medical services including primary care, orthopedics, cancer care, and urgent care. The business model focuses on integrated healthcare delivery with digital tools for patient engagement. The presence of a patient portal and online scheduling indicates a mature digital strategy. The organization leverages partnerships and advanced analytics tools for marketing and operational insights. The site targets patients and families in the Mountain region, positioning itself as a leading healthcare provider with a strong community focus.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and cookie consent compliance. However, there is no visible security policy, incident response contact, or vulnerability disclosure information. Security headers are not explicitly detected in the provided data, suggesting room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The lack of WHOIS transparency is mitigated by the organization's size and industry, where privacy protection is common. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by publishing security policies and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  2. Add and enforce HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Create and maintain a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Enhance transparency by providing clear contact details for privacy and security inquiries.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no vulnerabilities or privacy issues.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CommonSpirit Health
Description
CommonSpirit Health connects individuals, families and neighborhoods across Colorado, Kansas and Utah with more than 6,000 physicians and 21,000 of the best hearts and minds in health care.
Key services
Primary Care, Orthopedics, Cancer Care, Heart & Vascular, Neurosciences, Urgent Care, Virtual Urgent Care, Online Scheduling, Patient Portal
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, Google Maps API, Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, Bizible
Frameworks
Drupal CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with opt-in mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data detected in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, Bizible
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Bizible
Tracking pixels
Adobe DTM
Marketing tools
Adobe DTM, Bizible
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally designed healthcare provider portal for CommonSpirit Health's Mountain region.
  2. Content is rich, relevant, and well-structured with clear navigation and search functionality.
  3. Strong focus on patient tools, scheduling, and community impact.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content provided.
  5. Cookie consent and privacy policy are implemented with opt-in mechanisms.
  6. No visible security policy or incident response contact information.
  7. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query failure or privacy protection.
  8. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; site is fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Drupal 10 CMS platform with integration of multiple third-party services including Google Maps API for location services, Google Tag Manager and Adobe DTM for analytics and marketing, and Bizible for attribution tracking. The site uses responsive design and accessibility best practices. Performance is moderate with lazy loading of images and asynchronous loading of scripts. The technical infrastructure supports a large-scale healthcare network with complex content and user interaction needs. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and streamline third-party dependencies for enhanced security and performance.
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 centura.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 centura.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.