Skip to main content

Security report for apilayer.net

APILayer · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

APILayer is a mature and reputable API marketplace founded in 2015, offering a wide range of APIs across multiple categories such as finance, geolocation, marketing, and developer tools. The platform targets developers and engineering teams seeking scalable, easy-to-integrate API solutions. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and strong branding consistency. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including OAuth for authentication, Google Tag Manager for analytics, and Cloudflare for CDN and security headers. However, a critical security issue is the absence of a valid SSL certificate and proper HTTPS configuration, which severely impacts the security posture and trustworthiness of the site. Privacy and legal policies are comprehensive and hosted on the parent company domain, indicating corporate governance. Social media presence and client testimonials add to the trust signals. Overall, while the business and content aspects are strong, the security configuration requires urgent remediation to ensure safe user interactions and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching apilayer.net

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
60
Email security
50
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
50

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

APILayer holds a strong market position as a leading API marketplace with over 100 APIs and 445k+ developers using the platform. Its business model revolves around providing API access and integration services, supported by a parent company, Idera, Inc. The company leverages partnerships with specialized API providers such as IPstack, Coinlayer, and Weatherstack to enrich its offerings. The target customers are developers and businesses needing reliable API solutions. The website's content and testimonials reflect a scalable and reliable platform that supports rapid development cycles and innovation. Marketing efforts include affiliate programs and active social media engagement. The domain age and WHOIS data confirm a mature and legitimate business presence.

Security posture

The website implements several security headers including X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Content Security Policy, and HSTS with subdomain inclusion, which are positive security practices. Cookies are set with HttpOnly flags. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that expose users to potential interception and downgrade attacks. The absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption further weakens the security posture. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are publicly available, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. Overall, the security maturity is low due to these critical gaps despite some header implementations.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable all legacy protocols.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve security and performance.
  4. Publish clear security policies and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Regularly audit and update security headers and Content Security Policy to cover all resources and mitigate risks.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and uses libraries such as jQuery and Leaflet.js for maps. OAuth integrations with Google and Github provide secure authentication options. Hosting is on Amazon AWS with Cloudflare CDN providing caching and security headers. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices and accessibility basics. Performance data is not available, but the presence of preloaded fonts and asynchronous scripts suggests attention to load optimization. Technical debt is minimal, but the critical SSL/TLS misconfiguration poses a significant operational risk. Modernization opportunities include improving security infrastructure and expanding accessibility features.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with apilayer.net. 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 apilayer.net.

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.