Skip to main content

Security report for hellomedian.com

Median · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Median is a technology company specializing in cobrowsing and screen sharing software designed to enhance customer support experiences. Their platform enables real-time screen sharing, audio, and video communication without requiring downloads or installs, integrating seamlessly with popular chat and support tools. The company positions itself as a leading solution with a significant user base and global reach. Technically, the website is built on modern web technologies including Webflow CMS and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and ProfitWell. The site is well optimized for performance and mobile devices, offering a professional user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and bot protection via Cloudflare Turnstile, though explicit security headers and incident response information are lacking. Privacy compliance is minimal with no visible privacy or cookie policies, which is a notable gap. WHOIS data is unavailable, raising some concerns about domain registration transparency, but the professional site and client testimonials support legitimacy. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy disclosures and security transparency.

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 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

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

Keep watching hellomedian.com

This scan found 22 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Median operates in the SaaS sector, targeting customer support teams and call centers with a focus on improving support efficiency through cobrowsing and screen sharing. Their business model revolves around software integrations with popular chat platforms, enabling seamless adoption. The company demonstrates a medium-sized market presence with thousands of active agents and companies using their service worldwide. Their competitive advantage lies in ease of use, no-download screen sharing, and extensive integrations. The website showcases strong branding consistency and trust signals including client logos and testimonials. However, the lack of public WHOIS data and privacy policies may affect trust for some customers. The marketing ecosystem is robust with multiple tracking and advertising tools deployed. Strategic partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident from the data.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses Cloudflare Turnstile captcha for bot mitigation, indicating a baseline security posture. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options is a weakness that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site lacks visible incident response contacts or a vulnerability disclosure policy, which are important for security transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no clear privacy or cookie policies and no GDPR-specific disclosures beyond a brief claim in FAQ. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adding security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and providing incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve privacy compliance.
  2. Add standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear incident response and security contact information, including a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Improve accessibility features to meet compliance standards and enhance user experience for all visitors.
  5. Monitor and verify domain registration details to ensure transparency and trustworthiness of the domain ownership.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Median
Description
Median provides cobrowsing and screen share software for support teams, enabling real-time screen sharing, audio, and video communication without downloads or installs. It integrates with multiple chat and support tools to enhance customer support experiences.
Key services
Real-time cobrowsing, Screen sharing, Audio streaming, Video streaming, Integration with chat tools
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Webflow CMS, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, ProfitWell, Smartlook, Cloudflare Turnstile Captcha
Frameworks
Webflow
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Cloudflare Turnstile captcha for bot protection
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, ProfitWell, Smartlook, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, Twitter Ads, Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Twitter Universal Website Tag, ProfitWell, Smartlook
Marketing tools
HubSpot Collected Forms, Google Optimize
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website offers advanced cobrowsing and screen sharing software targeting customer support teams.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found in provided content.
  3. Multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools are integrated.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating privacy protection or unregistered domain.
  6. Website is well designed, mobile optimized, and professional.
  7. Security headers could be improved.
  8. No visible security or incident response contact information.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Webflow CMS and leverages a modern JavaScript stack with integrations for analytics (Google Analytics, ProfitWell, Smartlook), marketing (HubSpot forms, Google Tag Manager, Google Optimize), and advertising (Facebook Pixel, Twitter Ads). Hosting appears to be via Webflow's CDN infrastructure, ensuring fast content delivery. The site is mobile optimized and designed with good navigation and professional branding. Performance is likely fast given the use of CDN and asynchronous script loading. However, the site lacks some security best practices such as explicit security headers and detailed privacy disclosures. There is no evidence of technical debt or deprecated libraries. Overall, the technical implementation is solid with room for improvement in security and privacy transparency.
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 hellomedian.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 hellomedian.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.