Skip to main content

Security report for servicenet.org

ServiceNet · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ServiceNet is a Massachusetts-based non-profit organization specializing in mental health and human services. The website presents a professional and well-structured digital presence, targeting individuals and families seeking community support and healthcare services. The organization appears established in its sector, offering a range of key services aligned with its mission. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, utilizing common plugins such as WP Rocket for performance optimization and Rank Math PRO for SEO enhancements. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and user experience, though performance is moderate and accessibility features are basic. No advanced hosting or security infrastructure details are evident from the content. From a security perspective, the site lacks visible security headers and explicit SSL configuration details, which suggests room for improvement in hardening the web presence. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies indicates potential compliance gaps, especially regarding GDPR and data protection regulations. WHOIS data is unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, which reduces transparency and trustworthiness from a domain registration standpoint. Overall, the website is functional and credible for its business purpose but would benefit from enhanced security practices, privacy compliance measures, and improved transparency in domain registration information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

8 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching servicenet.org

This scan found 24 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
65
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
63

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

ServiceNet operates as a non-profit in the healthcare sector, focusing on mental health and human services within Massachusetts. Its business model centers on community-based support programs, targeting individuals and families in need. The organization leverages a professional website to communicate its services and mission, positioning itself as a trusted regional provider. The use of WordPress and SEO tools indicates an intent to maintain a visible online presence. However, the lack of detailed business registration data and contact information online suggests a cautious approach to public disclosure, common in non-profit sectors. No evident partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website's security posture is moderate but with notable gaps. HTTPS usage is assumed but not explicitly confirmed in the data. No security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are important for mitigating common web attacks. The absence of privacy and cookie policies raises compliance concerns, particularly under GDPR. No incident response or security contact information is provided, limiting the organization's readiness to handle security incidents transparently. The use of common WordPress plugins necessitates regular updates to avoid vulnerabilities. Overall, the security maturity appears basic, with recommendations to enhance protective measures and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a strong SSL/TLS configuration.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Deploy security headers such as CSP, HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Publish clear incident response and security contact information on the website.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ServiceNet
Description
ServiceNet is a non-profit organization providing mental health and human services in Massachusetts. It offers a range of community-based programs and support services aimed at improving the well-being of individuals and families.
Key services
Mental health services, Human services, Community support programs
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, JavaScript, jQuery, FontAwesome, Google Fonts
Frameworks
WP Rocket (performance optimization), Rank Math PRO (SEO)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
50/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Rank Math PRO (SEO tool)
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed response, indicating privacy protection or query issues.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the visible content.
  5. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for SEO and performance.
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL status unknown.
  7. No visible security or incident response contact information.
  8. Content is relevant to mental health and human services non-profit sector.
  9. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond SEO tools.
  10. Site design and navigation are professional and user-friendly.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing PHP and JavaScript with libraries such as jQuery and FontAwesome. Performance optimization is managed via WP Rocket, and SEO is enhanced with Rank Math PRO. The site loads fonts from Google Fonts and uses standard web technologies. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic. No advanced hosting or cloud infrastructure details are evident. The site could improve by implementing modern security headers and enhancing privacy compliance mechanisms. The technical stack is typical for a mid-sized non-profit organization, balancing ease of use with functional requirements.
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 servicenet.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 servicenet.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.