Skip to main content

Security report for alchemer.com

Alchemer · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Alchemer is an enterprise-focused SaaS provider specializing in online survey software and customer experience management tools. The company positions itself as a leader in transforming customer insights into actionable business intelligence, targeting customer-obsessed teams and enterprises. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, structured data, and integration of compliance tools such as Cookiebot for cookie consent management. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Elementor, leveraging modern JavaScript and SEO best practices, though some accessibility features could be enhanced. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable anomaly that impacts trustworthiness, though the website content and branding are consistent with a legitimate enterprise business. Overall, the site demonstrates a solid technical and business foundation but would benefit from improved transparency in privacy, security, and contact information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    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.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  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 alchemer.com

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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
52
Security headers
25
Email security
95
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
73

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

Alchemer operates in the technology sector providing SaaS solutions for online surveys and customer feedback management. Its business model revolves around subscription-based software services targeting enterprises and teams focused on customer experience. The company leverages partnerships with major platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn for social engagement and uses Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot for marketing and compliance. The website content and structured data indicate a strong market position with a focus on actionable insights and customer-centric solutions. However, the lack of visible company registration details and contact information on the site limits full business credibility assessment. The company appears to maintain a consistent brand identity and professional online presence, supporting its enterprise market positioning.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and implements cookie consent mechanisms, indicating attention to user privacy and security compliance. However, no explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are recommended best practices to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no evidence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are important for enterprise trust and regulatory compliance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified in the provided content. The security score is moderate to good but could be improved by adding explicit security headers, publishing security policies, and providing clear security contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to enhance transparency and compliance.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen web security.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response information including contact channels for security issues.
  4. Provide clear and verified contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Alchemer
Description
Alchemer is transforming insights into action with powerful customer experience management & online survey software.
Key services
Online survey software, Customer experience management, Feedback collection tools
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Yoast SEO, Elementor, WordPress
Frameworks
Elementor (WordPress page builder)
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design
  2. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content provided
  3. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot with high confidence
  4. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly detected in the provided content
  5. Social media presence includes Facebook and LinkedIn links
  6. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices observed
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies found
  9. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found, which is unusual for a commercial website
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Elementor page builder framework, integrating modern JavaScript libraries and SEO tools such as Yoast SEO. It uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and Cookiebot for cookie consent management, reflecting a mature digital marketing and compliance setup. Performance is moderate with some optimizations possible in accessibility and mobile responsiveness. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine understanding and social media integration. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced accessibility features and security header implementations.
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. 69/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with alchemer.com. 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 alchemer.com.

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.