Skip to main content

Security report for who.int

World Health Organization · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a globally recognized United Nations agency dedicated to promoting health, ensuring safety, and serving vulnerable populations worldwide. The website serves as a comprehensive portal for health topics, emergencies, data, and organizational information, targeting a general global audience. WHO holds a strong market position as a leading international health authority with an enterprise-level digital presence. The site is well-branded, consistent, and professionally maintained, reflecting WHO's authoritative status. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack including ASP.NET, Kendo UI, Google Fonts, FontAwesome, and integrates analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity with consent management. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, hosted likely on WHO or UN infrastructure with CDN support. Performance is moderate with good technical implementation. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses consent mechanisms for tracking, and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, explicit security policies, vulnerability disclosure, and privacy documentation are not found, indicating room for improvement in compliance and transparency. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious domains were detected. Overall, the WHO website is a trustworthy, professional, and authoritative resource with excellent content quality and business credibility. Strategic recommendations include publishing explicit privacy and cookie policies, security policies, and vulnerability disclosure information to enhance compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

4 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.

    • 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.

    • 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching who.int

This scan found 20 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
42
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
74

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

WHO operates as a non-profit international organization in the healthcare and government sectors, providing global health leadership, policy advocacy, and emergency response coordination. Its business model is centered on public service and international cooperation rather than commercial revenue. The organization targets a broad global audience including governments, health professionals, and the public. WHO's market position is unmatched in global health governance, supported by extensive partnerships and regional offices. The website reflects this with links to regional WHO sites and partner organizations. Growth indicators include ongoing initiatives and data-driven health monitoring. The partnership ecosystem is robust, involving regional WHO offices and UN agencies.

Security posture

The WHO website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, consent-based tracking, and no visible exposure of sensitive information. The use of Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Clarity is managed with user consent, indicating privacy awareness. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits transparency and may hinder rapid incident handling. Security headers are not explicitly detected in the provided data, suggesting potential for enhancement. No vulnerable libraries or critical security issues were identified. Overall, the site is secure but could improve compliance and user assurance by publishing comprehensive security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy accessible from the website footer.
  2. Develop and publish a formal security policy and incident response plan with contact details.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Enhance HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Increase transparency on data retention policies and user privacy rights to improve GDPR compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
World Health Organization
Description
The United Nations agency working to promote health, keep the world safe and serve the vulnerable.
Key services
Health promotion, Health emergencies management, Health data and policy advocacy, Global health coordination
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Fonts, FontAwesome, Kendo UI, Fundraise Up widget, Microsoft ASP.NET AJAX (ScriptResource.axd), Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Clarity with consent management

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Monsido Heatmaps
Marketing tools
Fundraise Up
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and maintained by a reputable international organization.
  2. Content is comprehensive and targeted at a global audience interested in health topics.
  3. Strong use of modern web technologies and analytics with consent management.
  4. Lack of explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service pages reduces compliance completeness.
  5. No visible security vulnerabilities or suspicious external links detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature ASP.NET framework with Sitefinity CMS indications, leveraging modern UI libraries like Kendo UI and FontAwesome for rich user experience. It integrates multiple analytics and tracking tools with consent management, ensuring compliance with privacy norms. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting appears stable with CDN usage for performance. Some technical debt may exist due to legacy ScriptResource.axd usage, but overall the infrastructure is robust. Opportunities exist to modernize security headers and enhance privacy documentation.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 75/100Medium25 findingsView report
  2. 75/100 −3Medium24 findingsView report
  3. 78/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with who.int. 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 who.int.

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.