Skip to main content

Security report for sistersofcharityhealth.org

Sisters of Charity Health System · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Sisters of Charity Health System is a non-profit healthcare organization headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, focused on providing healthcare services, community outreach, and grantmaking through multiple foundations. The organization targets individuals and communities in need of healthcare and social services, supported by a network of ministries and foundations. Their market position is that of an established regional non-profit with a strong community presence and active social media engagement. Technically, the website employs a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Analytics, and various marketing and tracking tools. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation and content structure, though it lacks explicit cookie consent mechanisms and some advanced security headers. Performance is moderate, and accessibility is basic but functional. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data but does not implement advanced security headers or provide a security policy or incident response contacts. The use of multiple third-party tracking scripts without explicit consent may pose privacy compliance risks. No critical vulnerabilities were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy with good business credibility but could improve privacy compliance and security posture. Strategic recommendations include implementing cookie consent, enhancing security headers, and publishing security and incident response policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 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

5 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching sistersofcharityhealth.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. 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
0
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
57

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 Sisters of Charity Health System operates in the healthcare and non-profit sectors, focusing on collaborative ministry efforts and community impact. Their business model centers on healthcare provision, outreach programs, and philanthropic grantmaking through affiliated foundations. The organization serves a broad audience including patients, donors, and community partners. Their competitive advantage lies in their established regional presence, multiple foundations, and comprehensive outreach initiatives. Growth indicators include recent grant awards and active blog updates. The partnership ecosystem includes foundations and community organizations, with a clear emphasis on mission-driven service rather than commercial revenue streams.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, it lacks several security best practices such as security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options), a published security policy, and incident response contact information. The presence of multiple third-party tracking scripts without explicit user consent raises privacy compliance concerns, particularly under GDPR. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files. The organization should enhance its security culture by adopting comprehensive security policies and improving transparency around data protection and incident handling.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Regularly audit and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Sisters of Charity Health System
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sisters of Charity Health System
Description
The Sisters of Charity Health System, headquartered in Cleveland, OH, is committed to strengthening the mission of the Sisters of Charity St. Augustine by promoting collaboration & sharing of resources among ministries.
Key services
Health Care Services, Community Outreach Programs, Grantmaking through Foundations, Advocacy and Education
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 4.3.1, jQuery 3.3.1, Popper.js 1.14.7, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, CrazyEgg, StackAdapt, AOS (Animate On Scroll)
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and analytics scripts asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, CrazyEgg, StackAdapt
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
StackAdapt, CrazyEgg
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
StackAdapt, CrazyEgg
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is relevant and updated with recent blog posts.
  3. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found, which may impact GDPR compliance.
  4. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  5. Use of multiple third-party analytics and advertising tools without explicit user consent.
  6. Contact information is clearly presented including phone and physical address.
  7. Social media presence is active with official accounts linked.
  8. No critical security issues detected in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with Bootstrap 4.3.1, jQuery, and Popper.js for responsive design and interactivity. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, CrazyEgg, and StackAdapt. The site loads scripts asynchronously to improve performance. The CMS is not explicitly identified, suggesting a custom or less common platform. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. There is room for improvement in SEO with more comprehensive meta tags and structured data. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which may impact privacy and security.
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 sistersofcharityhealth.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 sistersofcharityhealth.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.