Skip to main content

Security report for mpulse.com

mPulse · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

mPulse is a healthcare technology company specializing in digital health engagement solutions that create consumer-centric journeys to improve health outcomes. The company offers a suite of products including predictive analytics, omnichannel engagement, health portals, content management, and a HITRUST-certified Health Experience and Insights Platform. Their target audience includes healthcare organizations, health plans, and providers. The website demonstrates a strong market position with professional branding and comprehensive product offerings. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using Elementor and integrates modern technologies such as jQuery, Swiper.js, and HubSpot analytics. Hosting appears to be on Amazon AWS infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with structured data implemented for enhanced search engine understanding. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and domain registration protections but lacks visible security headers and published security policies or incident response contacts. The mention of HITRUST certification indicates a commitment to healthcare security standards. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected in the analysis. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-positioned in the healthcare technology market. However, improvements in privacy compliance documentation, security header implementation, and vulnerability disclosure would enhance the security posture and user 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

4 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.

    • 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

  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

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

Keep watching mpulse.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
52
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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

mPulse operates in the healthcare technology sector, focusing on digital health engagement and analytics. Their business model is B2B SaaS, targeting health plans, providers, and healthcare organizations. The company leverages advanced analytics and AI-driven engagement tools to improve member outcomes and operational efficiency. Their product suite addresses key healthcare challenges such as population health, member experience, and care management. The company has a strong partnership ecosystem and a growing presence in the healthcare market, supported by certifications like HITRUST. Growth indicators include recent acquisitions and active content marketing. Strategically, mPulse differentiates itself through integrated health experience platforms and predictive analytics, positioning as a leader in the Health Experience and Insights (HXI) category. Their focus on consumer-centric journeys aligns with industry trends toward personalized healthcare engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and domain registration includes multiple status locks to prevent unauthorized changes. The HITRUST certification claim suggests adherence to rigorous healthcare security standards. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and published security policies or incident response contacts indicates areas for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file limits transparency and may hinder coordinated vulnerability reporting. Compliance with GDPR or other privacy regulations is not clearly documented, and cookie consent mechanisms are not evident. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly visible. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a healthcare technology provider but could be strengthened with enhanced transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and configure security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service pages with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  5. Provide clear incident response contact information, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
mPulse
Description
mPulse provides health experience and insights products that create consumer-centric journeys for better health outcomes and business impact.
Key services
Predictive Analytics, Omnichannel Engagement, Health Portals, Content Hub, Acquisition & Payments, Health Experience and Insights Platform
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Elementor, WordPress, Yoast SEO, Swiper.js, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot Analytics, Warmly Widget
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of clientDeleteProhibited and other domain status locks
  • HITRUST certification mentioned

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
HubSpot Analytics
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Warmly
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is focused on healthcare technology and digital health engagement.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage; contact form available.
  4. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  6. HITRUST certification mentioned, indicating compliance with healthcare security standards.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  8. No visible security headers detected in the provided data.
  9. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using Elementor for page building, supported by jQuery and Swiper.js for interactive elements. SEO is enhanced with Yoast SEO Premium and structured data (JSON-LD) for rich search results. Hosting is via Amazon AWS DNS infrastructure, indicating reliable and scalable hosting. Performance is moderate with preloading of key assets and lazy loading of images. Accessibility features such as screen-reader alerts and skip links are implemented, contributing to good accessibility scores. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and adaptive images. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which could be addressed to improve overall security and trust.
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 mpulse.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 mpulse.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.