Skip to main content

Security report for feedbear.com

FeedBear · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

FeedBear is a SaaS platform specializing in customer feedback management, enabling app developers and product teams to collect, organize, and act on user feedback efficiently. The company positions itself as an affordable, customizable solution with a strong focus on user engagement through feature request boards, public roadmaps, and changelog announcements. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand presence, supported by multiple customer testimonials and reputable third-party review badges, indicating a solid market position within the technology sector. Technically, the website is built on Webflow with integrations including Google Tag Manager, LoopBear analytics, and HelpScout Beacon for customer support. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices, loads quickly, and employs modern web technologies. However, some security headers are not explicitly present, and there is no visible cookie consent mechanism, which could be improved to enhance privacy compliance. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of WHOIS data due to privacy protection or domain registration issues slightly reduces transparency but is common for SaaS businesses. Overall, the site maintains a high level of professionalism and trustworthiness, though improvements in privacy and security disclosures are recommended. Strategically, FeedBear should focus on enhancing privacy compliance by implementing cookie consent and publishing detailed security and incident response policies. These steps will strengthen user trust and align with regulatory requirements. The technical infrastructure is robust but could benefit from additional security headers to mitigate potential risks.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 12 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates

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

Keep watching feedbear.com

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
62
Security headers
60
Email security
90
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
75

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

FeedBear operates in the competitive SaaS market for customer feedback and product management tools. Its competitive advantages include ease of setup, customization options, and affordable pricing. The business model relies on subscription revenue with a free trial to attract users. Target customers are primarily small to medium-sized technology companies and app developers seeking to improve product development through user feedback. The company leverages partnerships with review platforms like Capterra, G2, and Trustpilot to build credibility. Growth indicators include active customer testimonials and case studies showcasing successful implementations. The ecosystem includes integrations with popular tools such as Intercom, Zapier, and Slack, enhancing its appeal. Operationally, FeedBear maintains a lean structure with a focus on digital marketing and customer engagement.

Security posture

FeedBear demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced site-wide and no visible exposure of sensitive information. The use of Google Tag Manager and HelpScout Beacon indicates reliance on trusted third-party services for analytics and support. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options suggests room for improvement in defense-in-depth strategies. No published security policy or incident response plan is found, which could impact customer confidence in handling security incidents. GDPR compliance is indicated through privacy policy presence and cookie usage, but lack of a consent mechanism is a gap. Overall, the security maturity is moderate to good, with recommendations to enhance header implementation and transparency around security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a comprehensive cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  2. Add and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen site security.
  3. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response plan accessible from the website to improve trust and preparedness.
  4. Enhance WHOIS transparency if possible or provide clear registrant information to improve domain legitimacy perception.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to ensure no vulnerable or outdated libraries are in use.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
FeedBear
Description
FeedBear is a better way to collect and manage customer feedback and ideas and keep your customers in the loop about product changes.
Key services
Customer feedback collection, Feature request boards, Public roadmaps, Changelog announcements
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow, Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Senja widget, LoopBear analytics, HelpScout Beacon
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with async loading
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, LoopBear
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LoopBear, HelpScout Beacon
Marketing tools
HelpScout Beacon
Transparency
basic

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 no blocking detected.
  2. Strong presence of customer testimonials and third-party review badges.
  3. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly found.
  4. Multiple contact emails for sales and support present.
  5. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy detected.
  6. Good SEO and mobile optimization observed.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response info published.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating privacy protection or new domain.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Webflow CMS, leveraging modern front-end technologies and third-party integrations such as Google Tag Manager for analytics, LoopBear for additional tracking, and HelpScout Beacon for customer support. The site is optimized for fast loading and mobile responsiveness, with clean HTML and CSS. Performance is enhanced by CDN usage for static assets. However, some security best practices like comprehensive HTTP security headers are missing. The technical debt appears low, but there is an opportunity to improve privacy compliance mechanisms and security transparency. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable SaaS offering.
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. 77/100Low25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with feedbear.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 feedbear.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.