Skip to main content

Security report for customers.ai

Customers.ai · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Customers.ai is a technology company specializing in website visitor identification and remarketing solutions. Their platform offers accurate visitor identification, syncing visitor data to email and ad audiences, tracking customer journeys, and converting anonymous visitors into revenue. Positioned as a leading solution with unrivaled accuracy, the company targets businesses seeking to optimize their marketing efforts through advanced visitor analytics. The company is registered in the US and was founded in 2017, aligning with the domain registration date. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, Facebook SDK, and analytics tools such as Matomo and Google Analytics. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure. The website is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices, with good SEO practices in place. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections, but lacks advanced security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional and credible but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 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

6 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching customers.ai

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
82
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
70
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

The company operates a SaaS business model focused on marketing technology, specifically visitor identification and remarketing. Their key services include syncing visitor data to marketing platforms, customer journey tracking, and anonymous visitor monetization. The target market includes businesses aiming to improve conversion rates and marketing ROI. The company maintains consistent branding and a professional web presence. The domain registration and company information are consistent and transparent, supporting business credibility. The use of multiple marketing and analytics tools indicates a mature digital marketing strategy. However, lack of visible contact information and privacy policies may limit trust for some customers.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and domain registration protections, which are positive security indicators. The use of reCAPTCHA helps mitigate automated abuse. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces defense-in-depth. No published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure programs were found, indicating limited transparency in security governance. The presence of multiple third-party tracking scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing security headers, publishing security policies, and establishing incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies including GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance browser security.
  3. Establish and publish an incident response policy and contact channels for security issues.
  4. Enable DNSSEC to protect DNS integrity and prevent spoofing.
  5. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Customers.ai
Description
Convert visitors into customers with the most accurate website visitor identification and remarketing platform. Sync visitors to email and ad audiences, track customer journeys, and turn anonymous website visitors into revenue.
Key services
Website visitor identification, Remarketing platform, Sync visitors to email and ad audiences, Customer journey tracking, Anonymous visitor monetization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, Facebook SDK, MobileMonkey Webchat, Salesloft Scout, Matomo Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Google reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
AWS (DNS via AWS Route 53)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of reCAPTCHA
  • ClientDeleteProhibited and ClientTransferProhibited domain statuses

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Matomo Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Google Analytics (via GTM), Matomo Analytics
Marketing tools
Salesloft Scout, MobileMonkey Webchat
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with popular SEO and analytics plugins
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage
  4. Multiple third-party marketing and tracking scripts are used
  5. Domain registration is stable and consistent with business claims
  6. No security headers detected; opportunity for security improvements
  7. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response information published
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a standard and widely supported platform. Hosting is inferred to be on AWS based on DNS servers. The site uses modern web fonts and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools including Google Tag Manager, Facebook SDK, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Matomo, and MobileMonkey Webchat. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Technical debt appears low but security enhancements are needed. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business goals but requires improvements in security and privacy compliance.
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 customers.ai. 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 customers.ai.

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.