Skip to main content

Security report for dashbird.io

Dashbird Inc. · Technology · United States

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Dashbird Inc. is a technology company specializing in serverless observability and troubleshooting solutions. Their platform offers agentless monitoring, error detection, and end-to-end visibility across cloud-native infrastructures, primarily targeting developers, DevOps, security teams, and architects working with serverless applications. Recognized as a Gartner Cool Vendor in observability, Dashbird serves thousands of users with a SaaS business model focused on usage-based pricing. The company is headquartered in San Francisco and has been operational since 2017. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and leverages a modern tech stack including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Intercom, HubSpot Forms, Hotjar, and other marketing and analytics tools. Hosting is likely on AWS, supported by DNS records. The site demonstrates good SEO optimization, mobile responsiveness, and a professional design with clear navigation and rich content. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security headers and does not publish a security policy or incident response contacts. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. The domain registration is mature and consistent with the business claims, though the registrant country differs from the business address, likely due to registrar location or privacy. Overall, Dashbird presents a strong business and technical profile with good privacy compliance and trust indicators. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and adding vulnerability disclosure information to improve security posture and trust further.

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 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 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
    • 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 dashbird.io

This scan found 21 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
57
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
74

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

Dashbird holds a competitive position in the serverless monitoring market, leveraging its Gartner recognition and a strong customer base. Its usage-based pricing model aligns well with serverless infrastructure economics, appealing to companies with distributed cloud resources. The company benefits from a robust partnership ecosystem, including integrations with AWS services and marketing platforms. Growth indicators include active user counts and cloud resources monitored. The business model focuses on SaaS subscriptions with no extra AWS costs or seat fees, emphasizing scalability and cost efficiency. Strategic observations highlight the importance of continuous innovation in observability and expanding integrations to maintain market leadership.

Security posture

Dashbird's security maturity is moderate to good. The use of HTTPS and agentless monitoring via read-only CloudFormation templates reduces attack surface. However, the absence of security headers and a published security policy or incident response contacts represents gaps in transparency and defense-in-depth. No exposed vulnerabilities or sensitive data were detected, and third-party scripts are standard for marketing and analytics. Compliance with GDPR is indicated by comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. Incident response readiness and security culture could be improved by publishing clear security policies and contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page detailing security practices and incident response procedures.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate supply chain risks.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all users.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Dashbird Inc.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Dashbird Inc.
Description
Dashbird provides serverless observability and troubleshooting solutions with end-to-end visibility across cloud infrastructure, enabling quick response to issues and maintaining quality and performance.
Key services
Serverless monitoring, Incident management, Well-Architected reports, Cloud inventory, Tracing, Log analytics, Custom dashboards, Error detection, Alarms and insights
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Intercom, HubSpot Forms, Hotjar, PushEngage, Crazy Egg, EnlighterJS
Frameworks
Yoast SEO plugin
Platforms
AWS (hosting DNS via AWS Route53), WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of read-only CloudFormation template for setup (agentless)
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Crazy Egg
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Crazy Egg
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, Reddit Pixel
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Intercom, PushEngage
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich.
  2. Strong focus on serverless monitoring and observability.
  3. Good presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. Use of multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools.
  5. No visible security policy or incident response contact information.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  7. Domain registration is mature and consistent with business claims.
  8. No WAF or blocking detected; full content accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern front-end stack including EnlighterJS for code highlighting and multiple marketing and analytics integrations such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, Crazy Egg, Intercom, and HubSpot. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure, supported by AWS DNS nameservers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices implemented via Yoast SEO plugin. The site uses asynchronous loading for scripts to improve load times. Technical risks are minimal but include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing security monitoring. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and accessibility 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with dashbird.io. 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 dashbird.io.

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.