Skip to main content

Security report for snhhealth.org

Southern New Hampshire Health · Healthcare · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Southern New Hampshire Health is a well-established non-profit healthcare system serving southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts. The organization offers a broad range of healthcare services including acute care, primary and specialty care, immediate care, and women's and children's services. With over 130 years of history, it maintains a strong regional presence supported by accreditations such as Magnet Certification and AAAHC. The website reflects a patient-focused approach with comprehensive information and digital tools like MyChart for appointment scheduling and medical records access. Technically, the site is built on Concrete CMS and leverages modern JavaScript libraries and analytics tools, providing a responsive and user-friendly experience. Security posture is good with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms in place, though some security headers and explicit incident response contacts are missing. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust verification, but the professional presentation and trust indicators support legitimacy. Overall, the site is a reliable digital front for a reputable healthcare provider.

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

6 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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

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

Keep watching snhhealth.org

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
Average
53

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 organization operates as a non-profit healthcare provider with a multi-specialty provider group, Foundation Medical Partners, serving thousands of patients across numerous practices. Its market position is strong regionally, supported by a large medical staff and multiple accreditations. Revenue streams likely include patient care services, philanthropic contributions via the Legacy Trust, and partnerships. The target audience includes patients, visitors, healthcare professionals, and community stakeholders. The website's content and structure emphasize accessibility, patient engagement, and community health initiatives, indicating a strategic focus on comprehensive care delivery and community wellness. Partnerships with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Nashua and local practices enhance its service network. The digital presence supports patient convenience and operational efficiency through online scheduling and portals.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent with opt-in, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and does not provide a published security policy or incident response contact information. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. Third-party scripts are used extensively, which necessitates ongoing monitoring for vulnerabilities. The absence of WHOIS data reduces transparency but does not directly indicate compromise. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by implementing additional headers, publishing security policies, and establishing formal vulnerability disclosure channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and consider adding a security.txt file to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to meet higher compliance standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and analytics tools to mitigate potential security risks.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Southern New Hampshire Health
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Southern New Hampshire Health
Description
Southern New Hampshire Health is a non-profit health system providing comprehensive, high-quality healthcare services including acute care, primary care, specialty care, immediate care, and women's and children's services to communities in southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts.
Key services
Immediate Care, Labor and Delivery, Primary Care, Specialty Care, Patient Portal (MyChart), Medical Records, Billing and Insurance Services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Swiper.js, Headroom.js, Concrete CMS, Bugherd, Freshpaint analytics, Google Tag Manager, Mercury Healthcare script, Calltrk
Frameworks
Concrete CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with opt-in mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and analytics with consent

Analytics and tracking

Services
Freshpaint, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Freshpaint, Calltrk
Marketing tools
Bugherd
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive and professionally presented.
  3. Strong focus on patient services and community engagement.
  4. Multiple social media channels linked with consistent branding.
  5. Cookie consent and privacy policies are implemented with opt-in mechanism.
  6. No visible security policy or incident response contact information.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain registration trust verification.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Concrete CMS, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Swiper.js, and Headroom.js for UI enhancements. Analytics and tracking are managed via Freshpaint and Google Tag Manager with cookie consent mechanisms. The site is mobile responsive with good SEO practices including meta tags and canonical links. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed by optimizing third-party scripts. Accessibility is basic, with room for improvement in ARIA roles and keyboard navigation. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and user-friendly experience but would benefit from enhanced security headers and performance optimizations.
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 snhhealth.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 snhhealth.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.