Skip to main content

Security report for para-hcfs.com

CorroHealth · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CorroHealth is a clinically led healthcare analytics and technology company focused on optimizing revenue cycle management for hospitals and health systems. The company offers a comprehensive suite of services including utilization management, clinical documentation improvement, medical coding, chargemaster services, claims management, denials management, and value-based care solutions. Their market position is strong within the healthcare technology sector, targeting healthcare providers seeking to improve financial performance through intelligent technology and analytics. The website reflects a mature business with a professional and consistent brand presence, supported by structured data and social media integration. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and incorporates modern marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, and Microsoft Clarity. However, performance is moderate to slow, and accessibility features are basic. The site is hosted likely on Amazon AWS infrastructure and uses a Sucuri Cloudproxy WAF for protection. From a security perspective, while several security headers are properly configured and HSTS is enabled, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support modern TLS protocols, which is a critical vulnerability. There is no cookie consent mechanism despite the presence of tracking scripts, indicating a gap in privacy compliance. No explicit security or incident response policies are found on the site. Overall, the website demonstrates good business credibility and content quality but suffers from significant security shortcomings that should be addressed promptly to protect user data and maintain trust. Strategic recommendations include installing a valid SSL certificate, enabling modern TLS protocols, implementing cookie consent, and enhancing privacy and security policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

2 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

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

Keep watching para-hcfs.com

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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
50
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

CorroHealth operates in the healthcare technology sector with a focus on revenue cycle management solutions. Their business model is B2B, serving hospitals and health systems with integrated technology and analytics services. The company leverages clinical expertise combined with proprietary AI and automation technologies to differentiate itself in a competitive market. Revenue streams likely include service contracts, technology licensing, and consulting. The target customer segment includes healthcare providers seeking to optimize financial and operational performance. The presence of partner portals and client login areas indicates a mature client management ecosystem. Growth indicators include recent press releases and case studies highlighting strategic investments and successful client engagements. The company maintains a professional digital presence with consistent branding and active social media channels, supporting its market position as a trusted provider.

Security posture

The current security posture of the website is moderate but with critical gaps. Security headers such as X-XSS-Protection, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Content-Security-Policy, and Strict-Transport-Security are properly implemented, indicating awareness of best practices. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of support for modern TLS protocols severely undermine the security of data in transit. The site does not implement OCSP stapling or session resumption, which affects both security and performance. No visible security policy, incident response contact, or vulnerability disclosure program is present, limiting transparency and preparedness for security incidents. The lack of a cookie consent mechanism despite active tracking scripts raises compliance concerns under GDPR and similar regulations. Overall, while some security best practices are in place, the critical issue of missing HTTPS must be resolved immediately to protect users and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Install and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable support for modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated versions.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  4. Add a comprehensive cookie policy and implement a consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Publish clear security and incident response policies including contact channels for reporting issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using the Divi theme, a popular and flexible framework for content management. It integrates several JavaScript libraries and plugins including jQuery, Magnific Popup for modals, Swiper for carousels, and Divi Pixel for enhanced UI components. Marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, and Microsoft Clarity are embedded for user tracking and engagement analysis. The site is hosted on infrastructure likely provided by Amazon AWS and protected by Sucuri Cloudproxy WAF. Performance metrics indicate slow loading times and zero resource/page size data, suggesting potential optimization opportunities. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design elements but accessibility features are basic. SEO is enhanced by Yoast SEO plugin and structured data in JSON-LD format is implemented for rich search results. Technical risks include outdated SSL configuration and lack of cookie consent impacting compliance.
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 para-hcfs.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 para-hcfs.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.