Skip to main content

Security report for chilipiper.com

Chili Piper · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Chili Piper is a well-established SaaS company specializing in demand conversion platforms that help sales and marketing teams automate lead qualification, routing, and scheduling. Their platform consolidates multiple sales enablement tools into one, targeting B2B enterprises and large sales organizations. The website demonstrates a mature digital presence with comprehensive product information, customer testimonials, and strong branding. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript libraries and integrates with major analytics and marketing platforms, ensuring good performance and user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and secure form handling, though explicit security headers and policies could be improved. The absence of WHOIS data introduces some uncertainty about domain registration transparency but does not detract significantly from the overall legitimacy. Privacy compliance is well addressed with a clear privacy policy and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, Chili Piper presents a professional and trustworthy online presence suitable for its target market.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

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. 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching chilipiper.com

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
70

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

Chili Piper occupies a strong position in the sales automation and marketing technology sector, offering a unique all-in-one demand conversion platform. Their business model is SaaS subscription-based, targeting medium to large enterprises with complex sales processes. The company leverages partnerships and integrations with CRM and marketing tools to enhance value. Customer testimonials and a large user base indicate strong market acceptance and growth potential. The platform's focus on reducing sales friction and increasing pipeline conversion aligns well with current B2B sales trends. The company appears to invest heavily in digital marketing and analytics to optimize lead generation and conversion.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses secure form submission practices, which are fundamental security measures. It integrates multiple third-party analytics and tracking scripts, which increases the attack surface but appears well managed. No sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap that should be addressed. There is no public security policy or incident response information, which could improve transparency and trust. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced with additional headers and published policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Consider publishing terms of service to clarify user agreements and legal protections.
  5. Improve WHOIS transparency if possible, or provide domain registration details on the website for trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Chili Piper
Description
Chili Piper helps sales teams automatically schedule appointments with leads. Instantly turn inbound leads into qualified meetings.
Key services
Form Concierge (form routing and scheduling), Distro (lead distribution), Chat (automated and live chat engagement), Handoff (SDR to AE handoff automation), ChiliCal (advanced scheduling)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Algolia Search, InstantSearch.js, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot Forms, Swiper.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of secure cookies (implied)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Form submissions via HTTPS
  • Use of reputable third-party analytics and tracking

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot Analytics, Facebook Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, G2 Crowd Attribution
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Salesloft, Optibase
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and interactive forms
  2. Strong branding and consistent design throughout
  3. Multiple product offerings clearly described
  4. Robust use of third-party marketing and analytics tools
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed, only forms
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  7. No terms of service page found
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, possibly privacy protected or domain recently registered
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including jQuery, Algolia search, HubSpot forms, and multiple analytics platforms. It is hosted on a CDN-backed infrastructure ensuring fast load times and global availability. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The use of multiple third-party scripts is well managed but requires ongoing monitoring for vulnerabilities. There is no evidence of technical debt or outdated technologies. Overall, the technical implementation is robust and supports the business goals effectively.
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. 71/100 +3Medium30 findingsView report
  2. 68/100 −3Medium31 findingsView report
  3. 71/100Medium24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with chilipiper.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 chilipiper.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.