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

75/100

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 broad international audience. WHO holds a leadership position in global public health, providing authoritative guidance and data to governments and health professionals. The site is well-branded, multilingual, and professionally maintained, reflecting WHO's stature and mission. Technically, the website employs a mature infrastructure using ASP.NET CMS (Sitefinity), modern JavaScript libraries, and integrates analytics and fundraising tools. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, with good performance metrics. Hosting appears to be managed by WHO or UN infrastructure with CDN support for global delivery. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, employs standard security headers, and integrates cookie consent mechanisms aligned with GDPR. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, explicit vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts are not publicly available, which could be improved to enhance transparency. Overall, the WHO website demonstrates a high level of professionalism, security, and compliance suitable for an international health authority. Strategic recommendations include publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy, providing dedicated security contact channels, and enhancing transparency on security certifications to further strengthen trust and security posture.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of who.int. View the latest report

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 19 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
47
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
75

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 with a mandate to lead global health efforts. Its market positioning is unique as the authoritative source for health standards and emergency responses worldwide. Revenue streams primarily come from member state contributions and donations, supported by fundraising efforts visible on the site. The target audience includes governments, health professionals, researchers, and the general public globally. WHO maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with regional offices and health bodies such as PAHO and AFRO. The website reflects WHO's operational scale and global reach, supporting its mission through extensive content and data dissemination.

Security posture

The WHO website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and privacy compliance mechanisms. The use of cookie consent and GDPR-aligned privacy policies indicates attention to data protection. No critical security flaws or vulnerabilities were identified in the public content. The absence of a public vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contacts is a minor gap. Overall, WHO demonstrates a strong security culture appropriate for a global health authority, though transparency in security processes could be enhanced.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a formal vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  2. Provide dedicated incident response and security contact channels (e.g., security@who.int, abuse@who.int).
  3. Enhance transparency by disclosing any security certifications or audits obtained.
  4. Continue to monitor and update third-party libraries to avoid vulnerabilities.
  5. Maintain and improve privacy compliance with clear data retention and user rights information.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
World Health Organization
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 response, Health data and statistics, Policy advocacy, Technical guidance
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Fundraise Up
Marketing tools
Fundraise Up
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is official WHO site with comprehensive health information.
  2. Content is multilingual with language selector for global audience.
  3. Strong branding and consistent WHO logos throughout.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  7. No visible security or privacy critical issues.
  8. No explicit vulnerability disclosure or incident response contacts found.
Technical notes

Notes

The WHO website is built on a robust ASP.NET CMS platform (likely Sitefinity), leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as FontAwesome and Kendo UI for UI components. It integrates analytics tools including Google Analytics and Microsoft Clarity, and uses Fundraise Up for online donations. The site is globally distributed via CDN, ensuring performance and availability. Mobile responsiveness and accessibility features are well implemented. The technical stack is mature and well-maintained, with opportunities to further modernize by adopting newer frontend frameworks or enhancing API-driven content delivery.
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. 74/100 −1Medium25 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.