Skip to main content

Security report for clarip.com

Clarip Inc. · Technology · United States

High risk. 5 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Clarip Inc. is an enterprise-focused SaaS company specializing in privacy governance and data protection solutions. Their platform offers a comprehensive suite of tools including data risk intelligence, consent management, vendor risk monitoring, and automated compliance workflows. Positioned as a trusted provider for Fortune 500 clients, Clarip emphasizes automation and AI-driven privacy management to help businesses minimize privacy risks and enhance customer engagement. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and detailed product information targeting privacy professionals, IT security teams, and legal/compliance officers. Technically, the website employs modern frameworks such as Bootstrap and jQuery, integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, and uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration. While performance is moderate and mobile optimization is good, there is room for improvement in accessibility and security headers. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected. The site uses secure forms and avoids exposing sensitive data. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices with HTTPS and secure data collection forms but lacks explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. No WAF or blocking mechanisms were detected, indicating full accessibility. The WHOIS data is consistent with the business claims, reinforcing legitimacy. Overall, the site scores well on content quality, technical implementation, security posture, privacy compliance, and business credibility, with an overall AI score of 87. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing incident response and security policies, implementing a security.txt file, and improving accessibility features to strengthen compliance and trust further.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of clarip.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
  2. 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';…
  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 clarip.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. 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
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
95
Average
53
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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 clarip.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2
Employees
0
Customers
2
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

2 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 clarip.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

Clarip operates in the technology sector, providing essential privacy governance solutions to large enterprises, including Fortune 500 companies. Their SaaS business model focuses on delivering automated privacy compliance and data risk management tools. The company leverages patented technology and hybrid AI to differentiate itself in a competitive market. Their offerings address multiple regulatory frameworks such as GDPR, CCPA, and other global privacy laws, targeting roles from C-suite executives to IT, legal, and marketing teams. The presence of detailed solution categories and industry-specific compliance resources indicates a mature product ecosystem. The company maintains a professional online presence with clear contact information and social media engagement, supporting growth and customer trust. No parent or subsidiary companies are identified, suggesting Clarip operates independently.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with mandatory HTTPS encryption and secure form handling. However, it lacks several advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response information, which could hinder transparency and readiness in case of security incidents. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present, limiting external security researcher engagement. The use of reputable analytics tools is balanced with privacy considerations, but continuous monitoring of third-party scripts is advised. Overall, the security maturity is good but can be improved by adopting additional best practices and formalizing security governance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance web security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to meet compliance standards and improve user experience for all users.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Clarip Inc.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Clarip Inc.
Description
Clarip is the next generation SaaS data privacy platform that helps business and brands minimize privacy risks and engage customers better.
Key services
Privacy Governance Platform, Data Risk Intelligence, Consent Management, Vendor Risk Management, DSAR Portal, Automated Data Mapping, Privacy Impact Assessments
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, SVG graphics
Frameworks
Bootstrap 5
Platforms
SaaS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure forms with POST method
  • No visible exposed credentials

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed with clear navigation and comprehensive content.
  2. Strong focus on privacy governance and compliance solutions for enterprises.
  3. Multiple product offerings and detailed solution categories.
  4. Contact information is clearly provided with physical addresses and phone numbers.
  5. No signs of blocking or WAF interference detected.
  6. Use of standard analytics and marketing tools with privacy considerations.
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies found on the site.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Bootstrap 5 and jQuery 3.5.1, indicating a modern and responsive front-end framework. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are integrated for user behavior tracking and marketing analytics. The site uses SVG graphics for scalable and high-quality visuals. The HTML structure is valid and well-organized, supporting SEO and accessibility to a basic degree. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts to reduce blocking. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive navigation and layout. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary hosting environment. Opportunities exist to improve accessibility and implement advanced security headers to reduce technical risks.
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 +1Medium32 findingsView report
  2. 70/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with clarip.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 clarip.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.