Skip to main content

Security report for floridahealth.gov

Florida Department of Health · Government · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Florida Department of Health operates as the official state government agency responsible for public health services across Florida. The website serves as a comprehensive resource hub for residents, healthcare professionals, and public health stakeholders, offering information on disease reporting, licensing, health statistics, environmental health, and certificates issuance. The agency holds accreditation from the Public Health Accreditation Board, reinforcing its credibility and leadership in public health. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, and Google Analytics, ensuring a responsive and accessible user experience. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices and incorporates accessibility features, although there is room for improvement in cookie consent mechanisms to enhance privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and follows several best practices, but lacks some security headers and public incident response information. The WHOIS data is incomplete, which is unusual for a government domain, but the website content and domain usage strongly indicate legitimacy. Overall, the site maintains a good security posture with recommendations to improve privacy compliance and transparency. Strategically, the Florida Department of Health website effectively supports its mission to provide public health information and services, with strong branding and trust indicators. Enhancing privacy and security disclosures would further strengthen user trust and regulatory compliance.

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. 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"

  2. 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

    • 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. 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

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

Keep watching floridahealth.gov

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. See sample alerts.

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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
45
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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

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 floridahealth.gov, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
22
Employees
0
Customers
22
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
5%

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 floridahealth.gov.

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

The Florida Department of Health holds a dominant position as the state’s primary public health authority, serving a large and diverse population. Its business model is government-funded, focusing on public service rather than commercial revenue. The agency’s key competitive advantage lies in its official status, comprehensive service offerings, and accreditation. The website supports multiple stakeholder groups including residents, healthcare providers, and regulatory bodies. Partnerships with other government and health organizations are evident through linked domains. Growth indicators include ongoing public health campaigns and digital resource expansion. The agency’s operations emphasize transparency, accessibility, and public engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforcement and no visible critical vulnerabilities. However, the absence of key security headers and lack of publicly available incident response or vulnerability disclosure information represent gaps. The incomplete WHOIS data raises minor trust concerns but is likely due to domain privacy policies for government domains. The site does not expose sensitive data and uses secure forms. Privacy compliance is partial, with no cookie consent mechanism despite analytics tracking. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved by adopting comprehensive security headers, publishing incident response contacts, and implementing cookie consent.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Add a clear cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Provide publicly accessible incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Regularly review and update WHOIS registration details to ensure consistency and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Florida Department of Health
Description
The Florida Department of Health is a government agency providing public health services, disease reporting, licensing, regulation, and health promotion across the state of Florida.
Key services
Public health programs and services, Licensing and regulation of health professionals, Disease reporting and surveillance, Certificates issuance (birth, death, marriage, divorce), Health data and statistics, Environmental health
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.3.1, Bootstrap 4 (bootstrap.min.css and js), Font Awesome, Modernizr, Respond.js, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, SiteImprove Analytics, Accessible Mega Menu plugin, Magnific Popup, jplist
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with POST method
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, SiteImprove Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
SiteImprove Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Official Florida Department of Health website with extensive public health content
  2. No WHOIS registrar or creation data available in raw WHOIS output
  3. HTTPS and modern web technologies used
  4. No security challenge or WAF blocking detected
  5. No cookie consent mechanism found despite analytics usage
  6. Social media presence on official platforms
  7. Clear contact phone number and contact us link
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response info publicly available
  9. Good accessibility and mobile optimization
  10. No adult or questionable content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a solid technical foundation using widely adopted libraries and frameworks such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and Font Awesome. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and SiteImprove for analytics and quality assurance. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with a clear navigation structure. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization. The absence of a detected CMS suggests a custom or government-managed platform. Technical risks are low, but improvements in security headers and privacy mechanisms would enhance the overall technical robustness.
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 floridahealth.gov. 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 floridahealth.gov.

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.