Skip to main content

Security report for flcors.com

Florida Department of Health · Government · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Florida Complaint & Outbreak Reporting System (FLCORS) is a government-operated online platform designed to facilitate the reporting of food and waterborne complaints and outbreaks within the state of Florida. It serves as a public health tool managed by the Florida Department of Health, aiming to protect and promote community health through integrated efforts. The website provides access to complaint forms, training manuals, and contact information for support, targeting Florida residents and health officials. Technically, the website is built on an ASP.NET WebForms framework, utilizing Bootstrap and Font Awesome for styling and icons. The infrastructure appears to be hosted within Florida Department of Health's domain name servers, indicating an internal government hosting environment. The site demonstrates basic mobile optimization and accessibility but lacks advanced SEO and modern CMS features. From a security perspective, the site uses domain status flags to protect against unauthorized domain changes but lacks DNSSEC and visible security headers in the HTML content. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or cookie consent mechanisms, which are important for privacy compliance. The WHOIS data aligns well with the website's government affiliation, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the website is functional and credible as a government service portal but would benefit from enhanced security configurations, privacy compliance improvements, and modern technical upgrades to improve user experience and trust.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching flcors.com

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
61

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 flcors.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for flcors.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

FLCORS operates as a government service platform under the Florida Department of Health, focusing on public health safety through complaint and outbreak reporting. Its market position is that of an essential state health service, with no direct commercial competition. The business model is service-oriented, funded and operated by the government. The target audience includes Florida residents, health inspectors, and officials. The platform's key services include online complaint submission, access to training materials, and user support via official email. The website's partnership ecosystem is limited to government-related domains, reflecting its public sector nature. Growth indicators are not evident from the site, but the domain age and infrastructure suggest stable operation since 2017.

Security posture

The current security posture of the website is moderate but with notable gaps. The domain uses registrar-level protections to prevent unauthorized changes, but DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose DNS spoofing risks. The absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. There is no visible HTTPS enforcement or cookie consent mechanism, which impacts privacy compliance and user data protection. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, limiting transparency. Overall, while the site is legitimate and functional, it requires improvements in security best practices and compliance to meet modern standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement HTTPS with strong TLS configuration and enforce it site-wide.
  3. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Develop and publish a comprehensive privacy and cookie policy with user consent mechanisms.
  5. Establish and communicate an incident response process and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Florida Department of Health
Description
Florida Complaint & Outbreak Reporting System (FLCORS) provides online access for reporting food and waterborne complaints and outbreaks to protect public health in Florida.
Key services
Online complaint and outbreak reporting, Food and waterborne complaint form, Training manual access
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
ASP.NET WebForms, Bootstrap CSS, Font Awesome 4.5.0, JavaScript
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of clientDeleteProhibited and other domain status flags to prevent unauthorized changes

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
good
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a government health department portal for complaint and outbreak reporting.
  2. Content is basic but relevant and functional.
  3. No advanced privacy or cookie policies detected.
  4. No evident security headers or advanced security configurations.
  5. No advertising or tracking technologies detected.
  6. WHOIS data and DNS servers align with official government infrastructure.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a legacy ASP.NET WebForms framework with Bootstrap and Font Awesome for UI components. While functional, the technology stack is dated and lacks modern CMS or SPA frameworks. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization detected. Mobile responsiveness is basic but present. SEO optimization is minimal, with no meta description or Open Graph tags found. Accessibility features are limited but include skip navigation links. Hosting appears to be managed internally by the Florida Department of Health, as indicated by DNS name servers. There is an opportunity to modernize the platform to improve performance, security, and user 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 flcors.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 flcors.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.