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 the United Nations specialized agency responsible for international public health. The website serves as the global portal for WHO's activities, providing comprehensive information on health topics, emergencies, data, and country-specific resources. It targets a global audience including policymakers, health professionals, and the general public. WHO holds a leading position in global health governance and policy advocacy, supported by its extensive regional offices and partnerships worldwide. The website reflects WHO's authoritative role with a professional design, multilingual support, and extensive content coverage. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Google Fonts, FontAwesome, Kendo UI, and integrates analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager. The CMS appears to be Sitefinity, supporting a robust content management framework. The site is mobile optimized, accessible, and performs moderately well, with good SEO practices and security headers in place. From a security perspective, WHO's website enforces HTTPS, uses security headers, and implements cookie consent mechanisms, demonstrating a mature security posture. However, explicit security policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly evident, representing areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected. Overall, the WHO website is a highly credible, professional, and secure platform that effectively supports the organization's mission. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency on security policies and incident response, publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy, and maintaining rigorous third-party script audits to sustain trust and security.

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 under the United Nations, focusing on global health promotion, emergency response, and health data dissemination. Its market position is that of a global leader in public health policy and coordination. Revenue streams primarily come from member state contributions and donor funding. The target customer segments include governments, health professionals, researchers, and the general public worldwide. WHO's partnership ecosystem includes regional offices and collaborating centers, enhancing its global reach and influence. The website's extensive multilingual content and regional domains support WHO's strategic objective of universal health coverage and health equity.

Security posture

The WHO website demonstrates a strong security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and cookie consent mechanisms. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analyzed content. However, the absence of a publicly available security policy, incident response contact, and vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and may impact stakeholder confidence in security governance. The use of multiple third-party analytics and fundraising scripts necessitates ongoing security monitoring to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, WHO maintains a mature security culture but should enhance public-facing security documentation and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security governance and controls.
  2. Establish and publicize an incident response contact channel for security issues.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency on data protection officer contact and GDPR compliance details.

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
Google Fonts, FontAwesome, Kendo UI, Fundraise Up widget, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity
Frameworks
Kendo UI
Platforms
Web
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, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
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. Official website of the World Health Organization, a UN specialized agency.
  2. Comprehensive multilingual support with language selector.
  3. Extensive navigation covering health topics, emergencies, data, countries, and about WHO.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Strong branding and consistent visual identity.
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  7. Good privacy and cookie policy presence with consent mechanisms.
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response page found publicly.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The WHO website is built on a modern technical infrastructure using Sitefinity CMS, Kendo UI framework, and integrates widely used web fonts and icon libraries. It leverages multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Fundraise Up for donations. The site is mobile responsive, accessible, and SEO optimized with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting appears to be managed by WHO or UN infrastructure with CDN support. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in script loading and caching. Technical risks are low but require continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies and security headers.
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 −3Medium25 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.