Skip to main content

Security report for emjreviews.com

European Medical Journal · Healthcare · N/a

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

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

The European Medical Journal (EMJ) operates a professional, open-access medical publishing platform dedicated to delivering insights and advancements across multiple therapeutic areas. The website targets healthcare professionals and researchers, offering journals, podcasts, webinars, and medical calculators. The platform is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and various analytics and marketing tools. The site demonstrates good design quality, mobile optimization, and SEO practices. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and reputable third-party scripts, though explicit security headers and privacy policies are lacking. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy despite the professional appearance and content. Overall, the site is functional and trustworthy from a content and technical perspective but would benefit from improved transparency in domain registration and privacy compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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. 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';…
  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 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 emjreviews.com

This scan found 14 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
75
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
83

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention emjreviews.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
11
Employees
0
Customers
11
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for emjreviews.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

EMJ occupies a niche in healthcare publishing, focusing on open-access dissemination of medical knowledge. Its business model revolves around providing free access to medical journals and educational content, supported likely by advertising and sponsorships. The presence of multiple therapeutic areas and interactive tools indicates a broad target audience within healthcare. The use of HubSpot and Google marketing tools suggests active engagement in lead generation and audience analytics. The absence of clear contact information and WHOIS data may impact trust for some users. The platform's partnerships with major ad networks and analytics providers support its market presence and growth potential.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses several reputable third-party analytics and marketing scripts, indicating a baseline security maturity. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options is a gap. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies was found. The site does not expose sensitive data in the HTML, and forms appear to be limited to marketing and lead capture. Privacy compliance is partial, with a cookie consent mechanism present but no visible privacy or terms of service pages. The missing WHOIS data is a notable concern for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with better policy transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure transparency and legitimacy.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact to enhance security posture.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and update libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
European Medical Journal
Description
Our independent, open-access journals are dedicated to delivering insights into ground-breaking changes and advancements in medicine
Key services
Open-access journals, Medical insights and reviews, Podcasts, Webinars, Congress Hub, Medical calculators and toolkits
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Owl Carousel, Magnific Popup, Select2, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Hotjar, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, HubSpot Collected Forms
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and tracking scripts from reputable sources

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Alexa Metrics, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google AdSense, Alexa Metrics
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, HubSpot Collected Forms
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional medical journal platform with multiple therapeutic areas covered.
  2. Content is well structured with clear navigation and multiple interactive tools.
  3. No explicit privacy or terms of service pages found in the provided content.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via CookieYes.
  5. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found, which is a concern for domain legitimacy.
  6. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools is evident.
  7. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  8. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and libraries.
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using a combination of popular JavaScript libraries and plugins including jQuery, Bootstrap, Owl Carousel, and Select2. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and HubSpot forms. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. Performance is moderate with preloading and asynchronous script loading. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained but could benefit from enhanced security headers and privacy controls.
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 emjreviews.com. 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 emjreviews.com.

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.