St. Thomas Health Care · Healthcare · United States
High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.
St. Thomas Health Care operates a network of urgent care clinics across the United States, focusing on providing fast, efficient, and patient-centered non-emergency medical care. Founded in 2002, the organization has grown to over 50 locations, offering services such as urgent care, physical therapy, occupational health, vaccinations, and telemedicine. The website targets patients, families, employers, and healthcare professionals, positioning itself as a leading provider in the urgent care sector. Technically, the website uses basic web technologies including jQuery and FlexSlider, with some optimization via mod_pagespeed. However, it lacks modern CMS integration, advanced frameworks, and comprehensive SEO or accessibility features. The site is moderately performant but shows signs of outdated content and limited mobile optimization. From a security perspective, the site lacks HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and visible privacy or cookie policies, which are critical for healthcare websites handling sensitive information. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. These gaps expose the site to potential risks and reduce user trust. Overall, the website demonstrates a basic online presence with moderate business credibility but significant security and compliance shortcomings. Strategic improvements in security posture, privacy compliance, and technical modernization are recommended to enhance trustworthiness and regulatory adherence.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.
Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing
What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
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
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 22 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention stthomashospital.org, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for stthomashospital.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with stthomashospital.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review stthomashospital.org.