Skip to main content

Security report for boarddocs.com

Diligent Corporation · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Diligent Corporation operates as a leading provider of governance, risk, and compliance software solutions, including its flagship BoardDocs product. The company targets corporate boards and governance professionals, offering secure collaboration and board management tools. The website reflects an enterprise-grade SaaS business model with a professional and consistent brand presence. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies such as Next.js, Google Tag Manager, and various analytics and marketing platforms, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism, though explicit security headers and incident response information are not publicly evident. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations, though WHOIS data is unavailable, slightly reducing transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

3 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 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 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 boarddocs.com

This scan found 16 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
75
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
79

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention boarddocs.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
99
Employees
0
Customers
99
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
9%

3 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for boarddocs.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Diligent holds a strong market position in the governance software sector, serving enterprise clients with specialized compliance and board management solutions. The business model is B2B SaaS, generating revenue through software subscriptions and services. The company integrates with multiple marketing and analytics platforms, suggesting a data-driven approach to customer engagement and growth. Partnerships with major platforms like Google, LinkedIn, and Microsoft enhance its marketing reach. The absence of explicit contact information on this landing page suggests a focus on lead generation through other channels. The company likely operates globally, though no specific country is identified in the content.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and a detailed cookie consent framework supporting GDPR compliance. Integration of reputable third-party services is managed with user consent. However, the lack of visible security headers such as CSP, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options is a potential area for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The absence of a public security policy or incident response contact limits transparency in security governance. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from enhanced header configurations and public security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options to strengthen defense against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to meet WCAG standards for broader user inclusivity.
  5. Provide clear and accessible contact information for security and privacy inquiries to facilitate communication and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Diligent Corporation
Description
Diligent provides governance, risk, and compliance software solutions including BoardDocs, a board management software.
Key services
Board management software, Governance, risk, and compliance solutions, Secure collaboration tools
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React (Next.js), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Optimizely, jQuery, Cookiebot, Reddit Pixel
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • Use of reputable analytics and marketing services

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Optimizely, RudderStack, LinkedIn Insight, Microsoft Advertising
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google AdSense, Microsoft Advertising, Facebook Ads, Reddit Ads, Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
Reddit Pixel, Optimizely, Cookiebot, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
Optimizely, Marketo, Bizible, Vidyard
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses extensive cookie consent mechanism with detailed cookie categorization.
  2. Multiple reputable third-party analytics and marketing services integrated.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on this landing page.
  4. No security.txt or explicit vulnerability disclosure found.
  5. No visible security headers detected in provided data; SSL is enabled.
  6. Content is professional and targeted at corporate governance audience.
  7. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; content fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React-based framework (Next.js) with server-side rendering capabilities, enhancing performance and SEO. It uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing tag management, alongside Optimizely for A/B testing and personalization. Cookiebot manages cookie consent, ensuring compliance with privacy laws. The site loads multiple scripts asynchronously to optimize load times. However, no CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly identified. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. Accessibility is basic and could be improved. The technical stack reflects a mature enterprise-grade web presence with opportunities for security and accessibility enhancements.
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 boarddocs.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 boarddocs.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.