Skip to main content

Security report for glia.com

Glia · Technology · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Glia is a technology company specializing in AI-powered contact center software solutions designed to enhance customer experience across digital and voice channels. Positioned as an innovative player in the AI contact center market, Glia targets enterprises, particularly in the financial sector, offering a unified platform to automate, assist, and analyze customer interactions. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear messaging, and comprehensive privacy and cookie compliance. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including Webflow CMS, Google Tag Manager, Marketo, and Facebook Pixel, indicating a well-integrated marketing and analytics infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and standard security headers present, though the absence of a dedicated security policy or incident response contact is noted. The lack of WHOIS data introduces a minor trust concern but does not significantly detract from the overall legitimacy given the professional site content and branding. Overall, Glia demonstrates a solid business and technical foundation with room for improvement in transparency around security and incident response.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

2 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 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 glia.com

This scan found 16 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. See sample alerts.

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
55
Email security
68
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
79

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 glia.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
184
Employees
0
Customers
169
Third parties
15
Weak passwords
29%

2 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 glia.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

Glia operates a B2B SaaS business model focused on AI-driven customer service solutions, primarily serving financial institutions and other enterprise clients. Their market positioning emphasizes cost efficiency and 24/7 support capabilities through AI automation. The company uses advanced marketing tools and tracking to optimize customer acquisition and engagement. While no explicit revenue or size data is available, the site’s sophistication and sector focus suggest a medium-sized enterprise with growth potential. The absence of public WHOIS data and security certifications suggests an opportunity to enhance trust signals. Glia’s ecosystem includes integrations with major analytics and marketing platforms, supporting a data-driven approach to business growth.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and includes key security headers, reflecting adherence to web security best practices. The presence of a cookie consent mechanism and privacy policy indicates compliance with GDPR and related regulations. However, the site lacks a dedicated security policy page and explicit incident response contact details, which are important for transparency and trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The use of third-party marketing and analytics scripts is standard but requires ongoing monitoring to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by publishing formal security and incident response documentation and establishing a vulnerability disclosure program.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive security policy page detailing security practices and controls.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including abuse and security email addresses.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure or bug bounty program to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to minimize supply chain risks.
  5. Enhance WHOIS transparency or provide domain registration details to improve trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Glia
Description
Upgrade customer experience with Glia’s contact center AI software. Automate, assist, and analyze every interaction across digital and voice with one unified platform.
Key services
AI-powered contact center software, Customer experience automation, Digital and voice interaction management
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow CMS, Google Tag Manager, Marketo, Facebook Pixel, GSAP, Swiper.js, Intellimize
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of consent management platform for cookies

Analytics and tracking

Services
Marketo, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Marketo Munchkin
Marketing tools
Marketo, Intellimize
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Professional and modern design with clear business focus
  3. Strong privacy and cookie compliance with consent mechanisms
  4. Use of multiple marketing and analytics tools
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response contact publicly available
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, which is a minor trust concern
  7. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS and utilizes modern JavaScript libraries such as GSAP for animations and Swiper.js for interactive components. Marketing and analytics are integrated via Marketo, Google Tag Manager, and Facebook Pixel, enabling robust data collection and user tracking. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features such as focus-visible outlines. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in load speed by optimizing third-party scripts. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting is managed by Webflow, providing reliable infrastructure. Technical debt appears low, but continuous monitoring and optimization are recommended to maintain performance and security.
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 glia.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 glia.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.