Skip to main content

Security report for lww.com

Lippincott (Wolters Kluwer) · Healthcare · United States

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Lippincott, a part of Wolters Kluwer, operates as a healthcare publishing and educational content provider targeting medical professionals and institutions. The website serves as a portal for accessing medical journals, clinical resources, and healthcare education materials. The business is positioned as an established enterprise in the healthcare sector with a focus on content subscription and professional services. Technically, the website is built on Microsoft SharePoint and leverages modern web technologies including Bootstrap, jQuery, and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, OneTrust, and New Relic. The site demonstrates moderate to good performance and mobile optimization, with a consistent branding approach.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of lww.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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. 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 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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching lww.com

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
47
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
78

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 company benefits from a strong market position as part of Wolters Kluwer, a recognized global information services provider. Its business model revolves around subscription-based access to healthcare content and educational materials. The target audience includes healthcare professionals, researchers, and medical institutions. The website integrates various third-party services for marketing and analytics, indicating a mature digital marketing strategy. However, direct contact information and detailed business disclosures are not prominently available on the site, which may limit direct customer engagement online.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and employs clientTransferProhibited status on the domain, indicating domain transfer protection. Cookie consent is managed via OneTrust, supporting GDPR compliance. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no Content-Security-Policy header or security.txt file was detected, representing areas for security enhancement. The use of multiple third-party scripts and trackers increases the attack surface, though no immediate vulnerabilities were identified in the provided data. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional DNS and header security measures and clearer incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement a Content-Security-Policy header to mitigate cross-site scripting risks.
  3. Publish a clear privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the homepage.
  4. Add a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents and data protection inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lippincott (Wolters Kluwer)
Description
Lippincott provides healthcare-related publishing and educational content, targeting medical professionals and institutions.
Key services
Medical journals, Healthcare education, Clinical resources
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Microsoft SharePoint, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Bootstrap, jQuery, Font Awesome, New Relic Browser Agent
Frameworks
Bootstrap, SharePoint
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • Use of OneTrust for cookie consent
  • No DNSSEC enabled (recommend enabling)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, New Relic Browser Agent, Marketo
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (AW- IDs)
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, ScorecardResearch
Marketing tools
Marketo, OneTrust
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses Microsoft SharePoint as CMS.
  2. Extensive use of third-party analytics and marketing tools.
  3. Cookie consent implemented via OneTrust.
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in the provided HTML.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected.
  7. Domain is well-established and registered with a reputable registrar.
  8. HTTPS is enforced with modern security practices but could improve with DNSSEC and CSP.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Microsoft SharePoint as its CMS, combined with Bootstrap and jQuery for frontend UI. It integrates Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Marketo, and New Relic for analytics and marketing. Hosting is via AWS infrastructure as indicated by DNS servers. The site loads multiple CSS and JS resources asynchronously and defers non-critical scripts to optimize performance. Accessibility and SEO are addressed at a basic to good level, with meta tags and responsive design. However, some legacy scripts and lack of advanced security headers suggest room for modernization and hardening.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 73/100Medium20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with lww.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 lww.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.