Skip to main content

Security report for getterms.io

GetTerms · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

GetTerms is a technology company specializing in providing data privacy compliance solutions for businesses worldwide. Established in 2015, it offers a suite of SaaS products including privacy policy generators, cookie policy generators, terms and conditions generators, and consent management platforms. The company targets businesses needing to comply with global privacy regulations such as GDPR, CCPA, CalOPPA, and others. With over 500,000 customers and strong trust indicators like high Trustpilot ratings, GetTerms holds a solid market position as a reliable compliance partner. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern technologies including Google Tag Manager for analytics and Cloudflare for DNS management. The site is well optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility. SEO practices are implemented effectively using Yoast SEO plugin. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and privacy-by-design principles applied in consent management, although some security headers could be improved. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates good practices such as default denied consent in Google Consent Mode and embedding a cookie consent widget. However, there is no publicly available security policy or incident response information, and no security.txt file for vulnerability disclosures. The domain registration is privacy protected but consistent with the business profile and age, indicating legitimacy. Overall, GetTerms presents a professional, trustworthy, and technically sound online presence with a strong focus on privacy compliance. The risk level is low, but improvements in security transparency and header implementation are recommended to further enhance trust and security posture.

Scanned

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

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 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. 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 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 getterms.io

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
75
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
76

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

GetTerms operates in the technology sector, providing essential legal compliance tools for online businesses. Its business model includes subscription and lifetime purchase options, catering to a broad range of customers from small websites to SaaS applications and eCommerce platforms. The company leverages partnerships and affiliate programs to expand its reach. Its competitive advantage lies in ease of use, comprehensive coverage of global privacy laws, and affordability compared to traditional legal services. The presence of a partner program and affiliate program indicates a growing ecosystem. The company’s operations appear stable with a clear focus on customer satisfaction and continuous product improvement.

Security posture

The security maturity of GetTerms is moderate to high. The website enforces HTTPS and uses Cloudflare DNS, which enhances availability and security. Google Consent Mode is implemented with default denied consent, reflecting privacy-conscious design. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No incident response or security policy documentation is publicly available, which limits transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The lack of a security.txt file reduces the ease of vulnerability reporting. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with better header implementation and published security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and partners.
  4. Add a security.txt file at the root domain to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  5. Consider providing direct contact emails or phone numbers for support and security inquiries to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GetTerms
Description
GetTerms helps businesses manage cookie consent and generate compliant privacy policies, terms and conditions & more. Trusted by 500K+ Businesses.
Key services
Privacy Policy Generator, Cookie Policy Generator, Terms and Conditions Generator, Consent Management Platform, Cookie Consent Banner
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Cloudflare DNS, WordPress 6.7.2, Yoast SEO plugin, JavaScript, CSS3, HTML5
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google Consent Mode with default denied consent
  • Cookie consent widget embedded
  • Privacy by design in consent management

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides comprehensive legal compliance tools for privacy and cookie policies
  2. Strong emphasis on GDPR, CCPA, and other global privacy laws
  3. High customer satisfaction and trust signals
  4. Modern, responsive, and accessible website design
  5. Good use of consent management and privacy-by-design principles
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; contact via forms and login portal
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.7.2 with the Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a mature CMS platform with strong SEO capabilities. The use of Google Tag Manager enables flexible analytics and marketing tag management. Hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare, providing performance and security benefits. The site uses modern CSS and JavaScript, with responsive design and accessibility features implemented. Performance is optimized with preloading of fonts and images. No deprecated or vulnerable libraries were detected. The technical infrastructure supports scalability and good user experience, though some security header enhancements are recommended to reduce risk.
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. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with getterms.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 getterms.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.