Skip to main content

Security report for glance.com

Glance · Technology · N/A

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

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Glance operates a large-scale smart lock screen platform that personalizes mobile device lock screens with news, games, and entertainment content. With over 300 million users worldwide and partnerships with major Android OEMs, it holds a strong market position in the technology and media sectors. The company leverages modern web technologies including Next.js and React, hosted primarily on Google Cloud infrastructure, delivering a fast and mobile-optimized user experience. Security posture is solid with valid SSL certificates and no known vulnerabilities, though improvements such as enabling HSTS and DNSSEC could enhance protection. Privacy and legal compliance are well addressed with comprehensive policies and TRUSTe certification. Overall, Glance demonstrates a mature digital presence with strong branding and trust indicators.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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. 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 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 glance.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
80
Security headers
20
Email security
95
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention glance.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
45
Employees
0
Customers
33
Third parties
12
Weak passwords
31%

6 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for glance.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Glance's business model centers on delivering personalized lock screen content through partnerships with OEMs and telcos, monetizing via advertising and content engagement. Its competitive advantage lies in its extensive user base and integration with device manufacturers. The company targets mobile users seeking dynamic lock screen experiences and maintains a robust partnership ecosystem including InMobi, Salesforce, and HubSpot. Growth indicators include multi-regional support and continuous content updates. Strategic observations highlight the importance of maintaining privacy compliance and expanding incident response capabilities.

Security posture

The current security maturity is moderate to good, with valid SSL certificates and absence of major vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE. However, the lack of HSTS and DNSSEC reduces resilience against certain attacks. No explicit incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms were found, indicating potential gaps in security culture and readiness. Compliance with GDPR appears addressed via privacy policies, but further transparency on data protection officers and incident response would strengthen posture. Overall, the security framework is functional but could benefit from enhanced best practices and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to secure DNS queries and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS records to restrict certificate issuance.
  4. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
  5. Provide explicit contact information for incident response and data protection officer to enhance trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React/Next.js stack, leveraging server-side rendering and CDN-hosted assets for performance. Hosting on Google Cloud and DNS via Azure DNS indicates a hybrid cloud infrastructure. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. However, accessibility features appear basic and could be improved. The absence of advanced security headers and DNSSEC suggests technical debt in security hardening. Opportunities exist to modernize security configurations and enhance compliance documentation to reduce operational risks.
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 glance.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 glance.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.