This study, focused exclusively on independently owned dental practices running WordPress, shows security posture on par with other healthcare-adjacent SMB sectors, but still trailing well behind broader industry benchmarks for key protections such as HTTPS configuration and security header adoption. With healthcare providers facing heightened privacy and reputational concerns, these measurable gaps are worth attention.
For dental practice owners with limited technical knowledge, this report translates technical findings into practical risk reduction priorities. Dental websites frequently store or route sensitive personal information, and even minor misconfigurations can affect SEO, patient trust, and business continuity. The report closes with actionable steps—prioritized by difficulty and impact—to help non-technical decision makers strengthen their site security posture with minimal friction.
Key Findings
- 7,152 scans across 4,006 unique dental WordPress sites; average security score: 42.1%
- 5,145 scans (71.9%) received failing (D/F) grades
- Security headers rated Good on only 0.6% of scans (99.4% failed this vital browser protection check)
- SSL/TLS rated Good on 7.0% (93.0% missed full SSL hardening, far below the 95% HTTPS baseline)
- Mixed content control exceeded industry peers at 78.6% Good, but 21.4% still at risk
- Cookie security scored highly at 89.7% Good
- Server version banner suppression was absent in 99.2% of scans
Methodology
This report draws on 7,152 security scans conducted between March 25 and June 24, 2026, spanning 4,006 unique small-business dental WordPress sites. All findings are anonymized and reflect aggregate sector-level patterns. The audience is US- and EU-centric, with over 5,000 US-based sites represented.
Scans included the following configuration checks:
- SSL/TLS configuration: Examined for valid certificates, modern TLS protocols, HSTS, and cipher strength.
- Security header presence: Evaluated for full suite (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy).
- Cookie security: Assessed for Secure and HttpOnly flags, and SameSite attribute on session/auth cookies.
- Mixed content: Checked whether active/passive HTTP content was loaded over HTTPS pages.
- Server version disclosure: Detected if software stack information (e.g., Apache, PHP versions) was visible in HTTP headers.
Grading definitions:
- Good: Meets all modern security baseline checks for the category.
- Warning: Missing some protections or using outdated configurations, but not hazardous.
- Critical: Absent or broken protections with known risk.
- Grade scale: A+ (best) to F (worst), mapped to cumulative check performance.
Limitations: Our segment reflects active dental practice sites, and may not capture the rare enterprise or multi-location dental provider. The strong US sample may slightly overweight English-language and US-privacy trends. Our “Good” SSL standard is higher than simply having any valid HTTPS certificate; see benchmark comparison for precise definitions. Selection bias may prefer those pursuing security scans already.
Detailed Findings
Security Score Distribution
The Data
| Grade | Sites | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| A | 37 | 0.5% |
| B+ | 115 | 1.6% |
| B | 63 | 0.9% |
| C+ | 907 | 12.7% |
| C | 519 | 7.3% |
| D | 2,189 | 30.6% |
| F | 2,956 | 41.3% |
What This Means
The majority of dental WordPress sites are rated in the lowest security bands: 2,956 received an F, and another 2,189 a D. Only 237 scans, or 3.3%, qualified for A or B—meaning the site passed all or nearly all critical security configuration checks.
For business owners: this does not prove your site is hacked or leaking patient data, but it does show system-wide weak points frequently targeted by automated attacks and search engine scanners. In the dental field, where reputation, compliance, and patient trust are non-negotiable, being stuck at a failing grade is an avoidable risk.
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | All Small Biz WP | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failing Grade Rate (D/F) | 71.9% | 70.0% | This Study |
| A+ / A / B+ Rate | 2.4% | 1.5% | This Study |
Dental sites marginally outperform the all-industry average, but the overall passing rate remains low.
Recommendation
Sites in D/F territory should review SSL/TLS, security headers, and work to close basic configuration gaps. Start with a focused scan to identify the largest single failing area before trying to fix everything at once.
SSL/TLS Configuration
The Data
| Rating | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Warning | 6,651 | 93.0% |
Definition: “Good” = valid HTTPS certificate, modern TLS (>1.2), HSTS enabled, strong ciphers.
What This Means
Only 7.0% of dental WordPress sites met full SSL/TLS hardening standards during scans. This is not simply a matter of having HTTPS enabled—nearly all sites do—but failing to implement HSTS and strong protocol configurations.
This leaves sites with:
- An increased risk of downgrade or man-in-the-middle attacks
- Gaps in browser-based warnings, which can erode patient trust or SEO performance
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | Industry Avg | Benchmark Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTPS (any cert) | N/A | ~95% | Chrome Transparency 2025 |
The sharp contrast: nearly 95% of the web has some form of HTTPS, but fewer than 1 in 14 dental sites have hardened SSL/TLS by current standards.
Recommendation
Enable HSTS, ensure you are using TLS 1.2 or higher, and verify your certificate’s validity and renewal schedule. Consider running a scan focused on SSL/TLS misconfigurations.
Security Headers
The Data
| Rating | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Warning | 7,109 | 99.4% |
Definition: “Good” = all best-practice headers present (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy).
What This Means
99.4% of dental WordPress scans failed to deliver a full, modern set of browser protections. Security headers are not just for compliance—they actively prevent attacks like clickjacking, MIME confusion, and the majority of drive-by browser exploits. Their absence increases legal and reputational risk, particularly if patient details are processed or if the site offers patient logins.
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | Industry Avg | Benchmark Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Headers Good† | 0.6% | ~4-6% | Helme Sec. Headers Survey 2025 |
†Helme survey less strict (sometimes counts missing CSP as “partial good”).
Recommendation
Have your developer or agency implement a baseline set of security headers—at minimum Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options. Many fixes require only web server or .htaccess configuration, not code changes.
Cookie Security
The Data
| Rating | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Warning | 735 | 10.3% |
Definition: “Good” = session/auth cookies set with Secure, HttpOnly, and SameSite attributes.
What This Means
Dental WordPress sites scored better here, with 89.7% passing cookie security checks. This means most patient-facing sessions are not trivially vulnerable to cookie theft via cross-site scripting or interception.
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | Industry Avg | Benchmark Source |
|---|
Strong adherence to basic cookie security best practices is a positive takeaway for this sector.
Recommendation
Verify that your contact forms and any plugin-created login areas apply Secure and HttpOnly cookie flags. Configuration can usually be enforced at the WordPress or server level.
Mixed Content
The Data
| Rating | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Warning | 1,528 | 21.4% |
Definition: “Good” – No HTTP content loaded on HTTPS pages (no visible or referenced assets served insecurely).
What This Means
One in five dental sites still load images, scripts, or frames over HTTP on an otherwise secured page. This can break browser security, cause SEO penalties, and in some cases trigger browser warnings that deter patients.
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | Industry Avg | Benchmark Source |
|---|
Slightly above average—but given the sensitivity of healthcare and patient data, not yet at an acceptable level.
Recommendation
After switching to HTTPS, review and update all static content URLs to use the secure protocol. Scan for old themes or plugins that insert HTTP resources.
Server Version Exposure
The Data
| Rating | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Warning | 7,095 | 99.2% |
Definition: “Good” — Core server version details (e.g., PHP, Apache) are not disclosed in HTTP headers.
What This Means
Only 0.8% of scans successfully hid server software versions from public headers. This leaves 99.2% with an avoidable information leak. Why it matters: attackers routinely target exact versions to automate exploit attempts. While version disclosure does not mean the system is vulnerable—it provides a clear map for opportunistic attacks.
Industry Comparison
| Metric | Dental Sites | Industry Avg | Benchmark Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Server Banner Good† | 0.8% | ~N/A | Industry: rarely measured* |
(*No publicly aggregated “banner good” available.)
Recommendation
Suppress “Server” and “X-Powered-By” headers at the web server or CDN layer. This is a low-friction, high-value hardening step.
Risk Landscape
Severity Distribution
- No active critical or high-severity CVEs directly linked in these 4,006 dental sites during this period.
- The background risk: 1,614 known exploited WordPress-related CVEs exist as of June 2026, with a sector-average 2.92% exploit probability.
Top Plugins Detected in Dental Segment
| Plugin | Sites Using | Known CVEs |
|---|---|---|
| contact-form-7 | 1 | 7 |
| google-site-kit | 1 | 0 |
| maintenance | 1 | 0 |
| independent-analytics | 1 | 0 |
| litespeed-cache | 1 | 8 |
Rates of these plugins are too low to draw statistical conclusions, but widely used plugins like contact-form-7 and litespeed-cache have a significant vulnerability history.
Private data-handling and patient-facing contact forms should be prioritized for inspection and updates.
Security Score Distribution
| Grade | Sites | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| A | 37 | 0.5% |
| B+ | 115 | 1.6% |
| B | 63 | 0.9% |
| C+ | 907 | 12.7% |
| C | 519 | 7.3% |
| D | 2,189 | 30.6% |
| F | 2,956 | 41.3% |
Industry Comparison Table
| Industry | Avg Security Score | Failing Grade Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Insurance | 44.0% | n/a |
| Hospitality | 43.1% | n/a |
| Dental (this report) | 42.1% | 71.9% |
| Healthcare | 42.0% | n/a |
| Professional Services | 38.0% | n/a |
| Unreachable/Parked | 24.2% | n/a |
Dental is mid-pack for small-business WordPress, but with a much higher burden for patient-facing risk than non-healthcare sectors.
Quick Wins for Site Owners
| Fix | Difficulty | Impact | Est. Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add minimal core security headers | Easy | High | 10 min |
| Suppress server version banners | Easy | Medium | 5 min |
| Update all plugins/themes | Easy | Critical | 5 min |
| Scan for mixed content | Medium | High | 20 min |
| Review contact forms (cookie flags) | Medium | High | 20 min |
Recommendations
For Site Owners
- Prioritize an automated scan to identify which category—SSL, headers, cookies, mixed content—has the greatest deficit.
- Ask your web developer or agency for a security review focused on header implementation, SSL hardening, and server banner suppression.
- Set a regular review schedule—every six months, or whenever major plugins/themes are updated.
For Agencies
- Standardize security header templates across all client dental sites.
- Automate SSL/TLS and mixed content checks on all launches and migrations.
- Proactively suppress server version banners using configuration management.
For Developers
- Embed security header defaults at the theme or child-theme level, or via secure server configs.
- Script mixed content scanning into deployment pipelines.
- Maintain visibility on plugin vulnerability advisories, especially for patient-facing forms and analytics integrations.
For more practical actions, our guide to quick website security wins details foundational steps you can implement today.
Conclusion
Three takeaways define dental WordPress security in 2026:
- 71.9% of dental sites landed in failing grades—driven mostly by missing security headers, incomplete SSL hardening, and visible server version info.
- Cookie security is a relative bright spot, but this is not sufficient protection on its own, especially as browser defense trends shift.
- Dental and other small healthcare practices are not laggards, but their risk profile is higher: every visible gap is a business trust and compliance issue waiting to surface.
Dental practice owners and their agencies have an achievable path to better security—with clear impact on SEO, patient confidence, and liability. Start with an automated scan of your main site, pay attention to the biggest failing area, and revisit your configuration at regular intervals to keep up as browser and threat trends evolve.
Sources
- Chrome HTTPS Transparency Report 2025 – Industry-standard HTTPS adoption rates
- Scott Helme Security Headers Survey 2025 – Security header adoption benchmarks
- Sucuri Website Threat Research Report 2024 – Infection rates for WordPress sites
- Patchstack State of WordPress Security 2024 – Core, plugin, CVE, and update metrics
- CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog – Publicly tracked exploited vulnerabilities
- ThreatSpot Secure WordPress Scan Data, 2026 – Aggregate security scan statistics for 105,648 small business WP sites
For further reading on why small businesses in healthcare are common targets—and how to stop preventable threats—see Why Small Businesses Are Easy Targets for Hackers.