Skip to main content

Security report for pennmedicine.org

University of Pennsylvania Health System · Healthcare · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Penn Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania Health System, is a leading academic medical center in the United States providing comprehensive healthcare services, medical research, and education. The website reflects a mature digital presence with a professional design, clear navigation, and extensive content targeting patients, healthcare professionals, and researchers. The business model focuses on patient care and academic medicine, supported by a strong institutional brand and affiliation with the University of Pennsylvania. Technically, the website leverages modern technologies including React and Sitecore CMS, with integrations for analytics and marketing tools such as Tealium and Maze. The site is mobile optimized, accessible, and performs moderately well, indicating a robust technical infrastructure suitable for an enterprise healthcare organization. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, implements key security headers, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks publicly available security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are recommended for enhanced transparency and trust. Privacy compliance is strong with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms, aligning with GDPR requirements. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with high trustworthiness and professionalism. Strategic improvements in security transparency and incident response readiness would further strengthen its security posture and stakeholder confidence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

3 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. 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

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

Keep watching pennmedicine.org

This scan found 18 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
79
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
77

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

Penn Medicine holds a strong market position as a premier academic health system affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. Its competitive advantages include a comprehensive range of specialty healthcare services, cutting-edge medical research, and educational programs. The business model is centered on delivering patient care while advancing medical knowledge and training healthcare professionals. Revenue streams likely include clinical services, research funding, and educational programs. The target customer segments encompass patients, referring physicians, researchers, and students. The organization demonstrates growth through digital engagement and partnerships, supported by a well-maintained website and consistent branding. The partnership ecosystem includes academic institutions and healthcare networks, although no explicit partner domains were identified in the website content.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is good, with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented, reflecting adherence to best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. However, the absence of a public security policy, incident response contact information, and vulnerability disclosure program indicates gaps in transparency and preparedness. Compliance with privacy regulations is evident through comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. The site uses third-party analytics and marketing scripts, which should be regularly audited to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced communication of security policies and incident response capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or publish a security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to minimize security risks.
  5. Enhance user trust by communicating data protection officer contact details and compliance certifications.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
University of Pennsylvania Health System
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
University of Pennsylvania Health System
Description
Penn Medicine is an academic medical center providing healthcare services, research, and education. It is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania and offers a wide range of medical specialties and patient care services.
Key services
Patient care, Medical research, Medical education, Specialty healthcare services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, React, Sitecore CMS, Tealium, Maze analytics
Frameworks
React
Platforms
Sitecore Experience Platform
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Security headers present
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with proper input types

Analytics and tracking

Services
Maze, Tealium
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Tealium, Maze
Marketing tools
Tealium, Maze
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to privacy protection or query failure.
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. No public security policy or incident response contacts found.
  5. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt detected.
  6. Multiple analytics and marketing tools used with moderate tracking.
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  8. Website is mobile optimized and accessible.
  9. Domain WHOIS data is privacy protected but domain is consistent with business claims.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack featuring React and Sitecore CMS, enabling dynamic content management and responsive design. Integration with Tealium and Maze provides advanced analytics and marketing capabilities. The site demonstrates good accessibility and SEO optimization, with proper meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, suggesting opportunities for optimization in loading times and resource management. The technical infrastructure supports enterprise-level healthcare operations, though continuous monitoring and modernization are advised to address evolving technical risks and maintain high availability.
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 pennmedicine.org. 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 pennmedicine.org.

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.