Skip to main content

Security report for fieldedge.com

FieldEdge · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

FieldEdge is a medium-sized technology company specializing in field service management software tailored for contractors in HVAC, plumbing, electrician, locksmith, and appliance repair industries. The company operates under the parent company Xplor Technologies and offers a comprehensive SaaS platform that integrates scheduling, dispatching, payments, and marketing tools to streamline field operations and increase profitability. Their market position is strong, supported by customer testimonials and SOC 2 certification, indicating a focus on trust and compliance. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and uses modern marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager, Pardot, and OneTrust for cookie consent. The site is optimized for performance and mobile use, with good SEO practices in place. Security-wise, the site has a valid SSL certificate but lacks modern TLS protocol support and HSTS enforcement, which are areas for improvement. The presence of security headers like CSP (report-only), X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options indicates some security awareness, but incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are not publicly available. Overall, FieldEdge demonstrates a solid digital presence with room to enhance security posture and transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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. 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 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 fieldedge.com

This scan found 17 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
70
Security headers
50
Email security
95
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

FieldEdge targets field service contractors across multiple industries, leveraging a SaaS business model with integrated payment processing and QuickBooks synchronization. Their competitive advantage lies in offering an all-in-one platform that connects office teams and field technicians, improving operational efficiency and profitability. The company actively engages customers through demos, marketing automation, and educational resources like the Field Services Academy. Partnerships with Xplor Technologies and integrations with Salesforce, Zendesk, and SendGrid expand their ecosystem. Growth indicators include multiple customer testimonials and a focus on marketing spend optimization. The company maintains a consistent brand and trust signals such as SOC 2 certification and transparent privacy and cookie policies.

Security posture

FieldEdge exhibits a moderate security maturity level with foundational security headers and a valid SSL certificate. However, the absence of HSTS and support for modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) reduces the overall security effectiveness. The site uses a content security policy in report-only mode, which is a cautious approach but does not enforce restrictions. No public incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies were found, which could hinder timely security issue management. The SOC 2 certification indicates internal controls and compliance focus, but public-facing security documentation is limited. The site employs OneTrust for cookie consent, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be strengthened by adopting best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and protect against downgrade attacks.
  2. Upgrade SSL/TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols and strong cipher suites.
  3. Publish a public security policy including incident response and vulnerability disclosure guidelines.
  4. Implement an active Content Security Policy (CSP) rather than report-only mode to mitigate XSS risks.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing data retention policies and a designated Data Protection Officer contact.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using Elementor for page building and Yoast SEO for optimization. It integrates multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools including Google Tag Manager, Pardot, OneTrust, Omniconvert, and OptinMonster. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but DNS is managed via DomainControl (GoDaddy). Performance is optimized with lazy loading, preconnects, and caching headers. The site lacks DNSSEC and CAA records, which are recommended for DNS security. The SSL certificate is valid with a strong 4096-bit key but does not support modern TLS protocols, limiting cryptographic security. The site uses multiple forms for demo requests, collecting email addresses with hidden fields for source tracking. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and performant but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and DNS hardening.
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 fieldedge.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 fieldedge.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.