Skip to main content

Security report for cqc.org.uk

Care Quality Commission · Healthcare · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England, providing inspection reports, ratings, and guidance to ensure quality and safety in care services. The website serves both the general public and service providers with comprehensive information and tools for feedback, registration, and compliance. Technically, the site is built on Drupal 10, employs modern web technologies including Font Awesome and Google Tag Manager, and demonstrates good performance and accessibility. Security measures such as HTTPS, Content Security Policy with nonce, and cookie consent mechanisms are in place, reflecting a strong security posture. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with GDPR and other privacy regulations, supporting its role as a government regulator.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

2 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching cqc.org.uk

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
64

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

CQC holds a strong market position as the authoritative health and social care regulator in England, operating under government mandate. Its business model is regulatory oversight funded by public resources, focusing on service quality assurance and public protection. The website targets multiple audiences including the public, care providers, and stakeholders, offering services like inspection reports, provider registration, and feedback collection. The organization maintains a consistent brand and provides extensive content relevant to its sector. Its digital presence is supported by modern infrastructure and partnerships with major analytics and consent management providers.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, robust security headers including CSP with nonce, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of Drupal's secure form handling and integration of cookie consent tools indicates compliance with privacy laws. However, explicit security policy and incident response information are not found, representing an area for improvement. No vulnerabilities or outdated libraries were detected in the provided content. The overall security score is high, reflecting good practices suitable for a government regulatory site.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security frameworks and practices.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ emails.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies for vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency around data retention policies and user tracking.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Care Quality Commission
Description
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. It provides inspection reports, ratings, and guidance for care services including hospitals, care homes, dentists, clinics, and mental health services.
Key services
Inspection reports, Service ratings, Guidance and regulation, Provider registration, Public feedback collection
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery, Font Awesome 5, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
Drupal
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
excellent
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of CSP with nonce
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with CSRF tokens (implied by Drupal)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
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 fully accessible and not blocked by any WAF or security challenge.
  2. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with active consent mechanisms.
  3. Clear navigation and well-structured content targeting both public and providers.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  5. Strong security posture with HTTPS and CSP implemented.
  6. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data.
  7. Social media presence on major platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube).
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10 CMS, utilizing modern front-end libraries such as Font Awesome 5 and jQuery. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and performance monitoring. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features. Performance appears moderate, with room for optimization. Security configurations include CSP with nonce and HTTPS enforcement. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, supporting a professional and user-friendly experience.
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 cqc.org.uk. 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 cqc.org.uk.

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.