Skip to main content

Security report for chop.edu

Other

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.chop.edu is currently inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error page served by a Varnish cache server. This prevents any meaningful extraction of business, technical, or security information from the site content. The WHOIS lookup for the domain also failed, returning no registrar or registrant data, which raises concerns about domain registration status or configuration. Without access to the website's content or metadata, no privacy, cookie, or security policies can be analyzed. The lack of contact information and business details further limits the assessment. Overall, the site appears to be either misconfigured or restricted by access controls, resulting in a very low trust and credibility score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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. 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"

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching chop.edu

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
67
Security headers
25
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
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

Due to the absence of accessible content and WHOIS data, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. The domain name suggests affiliation with the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), a well-known healthcare institution, but this cannot be confirmed from the data provided. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of visible business information or contact details prevents any analysis of market positioning, revenue streams, or customer segments.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the blocked content and missing WHOIS data. The presence of a 403 Forbidden error indicates some form of access control or firewall, but no specific WAF vendor was identified. No security headers or HTTPS status could be verified. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance gaps. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are also missing. Overall, the security maturity appears low or unknown, with critical issues related to accessibility and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve the 403 Forbidden error to allow public access to the website content.
  2. Ensure proper domain registration and WHOIS data availability for transparency.
  3. Implement and publish privacy, cookie, and security policies to improve compliance.
  4. Deploy security headers and verify HTTPS configuration to enhance security posture.
  5. Add clear contact information and business details to build trust and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website returns a 403 Forbidden error with a Varnish cache server message indicating access is blocked or restricted. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No metadata, structured data, or scripts detected due to minimal HTML content.
  3. No contact information, policies, or business data available on the page.
  4. No external links or social media links found.
  5. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  6. Site is likely behind a restrictive access control or misconfigured firewall/cache.
  7. Analysis is incomplete due to blocked content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves only a minimal error page with no metadata, scripts, or structured data. No CMS or technology stack could be detected. The use of Varnish cache is noted, but no hosting provider or platform information is available. Performance, mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO cannot be evaluated due to lack of content. The domain's WHOIS data is missing or inaccessible, indicating possible registration or configuration issues that should be addressed to ensure proper domain management.
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 chop.edu. 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 chop.edu.

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.