Skip to main content

Security report for international-journal-of-gynecological-cancer.com

Elsevier · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer website serves as a professional academic platform for disseminating research and journal content related to gynecological oncology. It is branded under Elsevier, a well-known global publisher in healthcare and scientific domains. The site targets medical researchers, healthcare professionals, and academic institutions, providing subscription-based access to scholarly articles and resources. The business model is focused on academic publishing and research dissemination within the healthcare sector. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript frameworks and monitoring tools such as New Relic SPA, alongside compliance tools like OneTrust for cookie consent management. The site uses HTTPS and integrates Google Fonts and advertising scripts from Google DoubleClick, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Performance and mobile optimization are adequate, with good SEO and basic accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses monitoring and consent management tools, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or sensitive data exposures were detected. Privacy compliance is strong, with clear cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR-aligned privacy policies. However, the absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises questions about domain registration legitimacy, although the website content and branding strongly associate with Elsevier. Overall, the website is professional, secure, and compliant with privacy regulations, but improvements are recommended in publishing security policies, incident response contacts, and enhancing security headers. The domain registration ambiguity warrants further investigation to ensure full trustworthiness.

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

4 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 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. 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
    • 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 international-journal-of-gynecological-cancer.com

This scan found 21 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
42
Security headers
65
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
72

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

The website operates within the healthcare academic publishing sector, leveraging Elsevier's brand and infrastructure. It targets a niche audience of medical researchers and professionals specializing in gynecological cancer. The business model relies on subscription and institutional access to journal content. The site benefits from Elsevier's market position as a leading scientific publisher, providing competitive advantages in content quality and distribution. The partnership ecosystem includes advertising and analytics providers such as Google and New Relic. Growth indicators are not explicit but the association with Elsevier suggests stable operations. The lack of direct contact information may indicate a centralized support model through Elsevier's main channels.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of monitoring tools, and cookie consent compliance. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information is published, limiting transparency for security researchers. Incident response contacts are not provided, which could delay response to security incidents. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for an academic publishing site but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Add explicit contact information on the website for business and security inquiries to enhance trust and communication.
  5. Conduct periodic security audits and update third-party libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Elsevier
Description
Official website for the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, providing access to journal content, research articles, and academic resources in the field of gynecological oncology.
Key services
Academic journal publishing, Research dissemination, Content hosting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, New Relic SPA monitoring, OneTrust cookie consent, Google Fonts (Open Sans), DoubleClick for Publishers (Google Ads), JSON-LD structured data
Frameworks
New Relic SPA
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of New Relic for monitoring
  • Cookie consent via OneTrust

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
New Relic
Marketing tools
OneTrust cookie consent
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Content is professional and targeted at academic and medical professionals
  3. Strong privacy and cookie compliance via OneTrust
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on homepage
  5. No explicit security policies or incident response info published
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, domain registration status unclear
  7. Use of multiple third-party scripts for analytics and advertising
  8. No adult or NSFW content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based SPA framework monitored by New Relic, indicating a mature technical infrastructure. It integrates third-party services for analytics, advertising, and cookie consent management. The site is hosted on a platform likely proprietary to Elsevier, with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in load times and accessibility features. The absence of explicit CMS identification suggests a custom or proprietary content management system. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which may introduce privacy or security concerns if not regularly audited.
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 international-journal-of-gynecological-cancer.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 international-journal-of-gynecological-cancer.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.