Skip to main content

Security report for msdformothers.com

MSD for Mothers · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

MSD for Mothers is a global health initiative dedicated to reducing maternal mortality by addressing preventable pregnancy complications worldwide. The website serves as an informational and advocacy platform targeting healthcare professionals, policymakers, donors, and the global health community. It is branded consistently with MSD, indicating affiliation with the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. The business model is non-profit and focused on global health partnerships and education. Technically, the website uses modern frontend technologies including jQuery, Bootstrap, FontAwesome, and integrates Google Tag Manager and OneTrust for analytics and cookie consent respectively. The site is mobile optimized with good navigation and content relevance. Security posture is moderate; while HTTPS is implied, no security headers were detected in the provided data, and no explicit privacy or security policies are visible. The WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy despite the professional appearance and branding of the site. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

5 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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
    • High

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 26 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates

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

Keep watching msdformothers.com

This scan found 20 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
57
Security headers
50
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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 initiative positions itself as a recognized global health program within the healthcare sector, focusing on maternal health advocacy and partnerships. Its target audience includes healthcare professionals and global health stakeholders. The website content and social media presence support its role as an awareness and education platform. The lack of detailed business registration data and contact information limits full business credibility assessment. The affiliation with MSD provides a strong brand association and potential access to resources and partnerships. The business model is non-profit, relying on advocacy and partnerships rather than commercial revenue streams. Growth indicators and subsidiary information are not available from the data provided.

Security posture

The website demonstrates basic security awareness through the implementation of a cookie consent mechanism and use of HTTPS (implied). However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options is a weakness. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which limits the ability to report security issues. The missing WHOIS data and lack of privacy policy reduce trust and compliance posture. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires improvements in transparency, policy publication, and technical security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve transparency and compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  3. Publish a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact information to facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and improve trustworthiness.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any potential vulnerabilities and improve overall security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
MSD for Mothers
Description
MSD for Mothers is a global initiative focused on preventing maternal mortality by addressing preventable complications during pregnancy worldwide.
Key services
Maternal health advocacy, Global health partnerships, Education and awareness campaigns
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.5.1, Bootstrap, FontAwesome 6.7.2, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • Google Tag Manager used for analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook SDK
Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content and no blocking detected.
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on the main page.
  3. Cookie consent is implemented via OneTrust.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  5. Social media presence includes Facebook and Instagram official pages.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered in public WHOIS database.
  7. Website uses modern frontend technologies and standard analytics tools.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. No visible security headers detected in provided data.
  10. Content is focused on maternal health awareness and advocacy.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and standard technology stack with jQuery 3.5.1, Bootstrap for responsive design, and FontAwesome for icons. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics, and OneTrust manages cookie consent, indicating attention to privacy compliance. The site appears mobile optimized with good navigation and SEO meta tags. However, no CMS or hosting provider information was detected. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is an opportunity to improve technical security configurations and enhance privacy compliance documentation.
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 msdformothers.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 msdformothers.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.