Skip to main content

Security report for mhs.net

Memorial Healthcare System · Healthcare · United States

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Memorial Healthcare System is a well-established nonprofit healthcare provider based in South Florida, offering a wide range of medical services including cancer care, heart and vascular treatment, maternity, mental health, and rehabilitation. The organization targets both patients and medical professionals, positioning itself as a leader in the regional healthcare market with multiple accreditations and a strong community presence. The website reflects a professional and comprehensive digital presence with clear navigation, rich content, and consistent branding. Technically, the site is hosted on Microsoft Azure using ASP.NET and integrates modern web technologies and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Azure Application Insights. However, a critical security gap exists due to the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate and HTTPS support, exposing users to potential risks. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant, with consent mechanisms implemented. Overall, the site demonstrates high business credibility but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and maintain trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 100 · Critical
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching mhs.net

This scan found 17 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
45

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 business operates as a nonprofit healthcare system serving a large enterprise-scale market in the United States, specifically South Florida. It leverages partnerships with affiliated organizations such as the Memorial Foundation and Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital to extend its service offerings. The business model focuses on patient care, medical education, and community outreach, supported by a robust online presence that facilitates appointments, bill payments, and provider searches. The company maintains active social media channels and uses advanced analytics for user engagement. Its market position is strong, supported by multiple awards and accreditations that enhance trust and reputation. The website’s content and structure support both patient and professional audiences effectively.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and valid SSL/TLS certificates, which is a critical vulnerability for any healthcare-related website handling sensitive information. While cookies are set with secure and HttpOnly flags, the absence of encryption undermines overall security. No advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or HSTS are implemented, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are publicly available. The site uses modern analytics and tracking tools responsibly with privacy policies in place, but the fundamental transport security gap poses significant risk. Immediate remediation is required to secure communications and protect patient data.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) and implement HSTS with preload and includeSubDomains.
  3. Add comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to enhance transparency and incident response readiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Memorial Healthcare System
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a Microsoft IIS 10.0 server running ASP.NET, hosted on Microsoft Azure. It uses Google Tag Manager and Azure Application Insights for analytics and monitoring, indicating a mature technical infrastructure. The site employs lazy loading for images and parallax effects for enhanced user experience. Mobile optimization and accessibility features are well implemented, with responsive design and skip links for navigation. However, the lack of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical deficiency. Performance data was not available, but the use of modern front-end techniques suggests moderate to good performance. The CMS appears custom or proprietary, with no common CMS detected. Overall, the technical stack is solid but requires urgent security upgrades.
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 mhs.net. 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 mhs.net.

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.