Skip to main content

Security report for elliothospital.org

Elliot Health System · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Elliot Health System is a large, non-profit healthcare provider serving Southern New Hampshire, offering a comprehensive range of medical services including emergency care, cardiothoracic surgery, cancer care, and specialized neonatal intensive care. The organization holds significant accreditations and affiliations, notably with Massachusetts General Hospital, positioning it as a leading healthcare institution in its region. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and extensive patient resources such as a secure patient portal (MyChart). Technically, the site is built on Concrete CMS and leverages modern JavaScript libraries and analytics tools, ensuring good performance and accessibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement and cookie consent mechanisms, though some security headers and incident response disclosures could be improved. WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is typical for healthcare entities, but the overall trustworthiness is supported by the website's content and affiliations. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing incident response contacts, and adding vulnerability disclosure information to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching elliothospital.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
77
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
Average
63

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

Elliot Health System operates as a key healthcare provider in Southern New Hampshire, with a broad service portfolio targeting patients and families in the region. Its non-profit model is supported by charitable foundations and community engagement initiatives. The organization benefits from strategic partnerships with SolutionHealth and Massachusetts General Hospital, enhancing its clinical capabilities and market position. Revenue streams likely include patient services, outpatient care, and philanthropic contributions. The website's comprehensive service listings and patient resources indicate a focus on patient-centric care and digital engagement. Growth indicators include recent leadership appointments and program expansions such as the Cardiothoracic Surgery Program. The partnership ecosystem is robust, involving affiliates and community organizations, supporting a strong regional healthcare network.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented, reflecting compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of key security headers like Content-Security-Policy and a public incident response contact or vulnerability disclosure page suggests room for improvement in security transparency and defense-in-depth. The use of third-party analytics and accessibility widgets introduces potential risk vectors that should be regularly audited. Overall, the security posture is mature but could benefit from enhanced header policies and formalized incident response communication to align with best practices and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish an incident response contact page or security email to facilitate vulnerability reporting and response.
  3. Add a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to mitigate supply chain risks.
  5. Consider enabling DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Elliot Health System
Description
The Elliot consists of a large network of services offered at many convenient outpatient centers and other sites throughout Southern New Hampshire. It is the largest provider of comprehensive healthcare services in Southern New Hampshire, home to a Level II Regional Trauma Center and Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. It is a founding member of SolutionHealth and a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital.
Key services
Emergency Care, Urgent Care, Primary Care, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cancer Care, Behavioral Health, Diabetes Services, Imaging, Laboratory Services, Maternity and NICU
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Swiper.js, Concrete CMS, Google Tag Manager, Freshpaint Analytics, UserWay Accessibility Widget, Common Ninja SDK
Frameworks
Concrete CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with opt-in mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with POST method

Analytics and tracking

Services
Freshpaint, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Freshpaint
Marketing tools
Freshpaint, Common Ninja
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive, professionally presented, and relevant to healthcare.
  3. Strong presence of trust indicators and certifications.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and CMS.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present with consent mechanisms.
  6. No security.txt or explicit incident response contacts found.
  7. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for healthcare domains.
  8. Multiple external trusted domains linked including Massachusetts General Hospital and SolutionHealth.
  9. Social media presence on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter (X).
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Concrete CMS, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Swiper.js for UI components. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Freshpaint for analytics and tracking, alongside accessibility tools like UserWay. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in asset loading and caching. The technical infrastructure supports a professional healthcare website with secure forms and patient portal integration. Opportunities exist to modernize security headers and streamline third-party dependencies to reduce technical debt and enhance security resilience.
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 elliothospital.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 elliothospital.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.