Skip to main content

Security report for iclicker.com

iClicker · Education · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

iClicker operates as a market-leading provider of student response and classroom engagement tools primarily targeting higher education institutions, educators, and students. The website presents a professional and well-structured digital presence, leveraging WordPress CMS with modern technologies such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and OneTrust for privacy compliance. The company emphasizes pedagogy-focused, reliable solutions for interactive learning environments. Technically, the site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile responsiveness, with good SEO practices in place. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks visible security headers and published security policies. The absence of WHOIS data reduces transparency and trustworthiness, though the website content and branding strongly indicate a legitimate and established business. Overall, the site scores well in content quality and privacy compliance but would benefit from enhanced security practices and clearer business contact information.

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

6 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. 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
    • 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 iclicker.com

This scan found 23 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
68

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

iClicker holds a strong position in the education technology sector, focusing on interactive classroom tools that enhance student engagement. Their business model includes direct sales and partnerships with educational institutions. The company targets a niche market of higher education, leveraging a reputation as a market leader. The website's integration with marketing tools like Marketo and Google Tag Manager suggests active digital marketing and lead generation strategies. The lack of explicit contact details and WHOIS transparency may indicate a need for improved corporate disclosure. No certifications or security accreditations are displayed, which could be an area for future development to strengthen trust. The partnership with Macmillan Learning for privacy policy hosting indicates collaboration with established educational publishers.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS and GDPR-compliant cookie consent mechanisms. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security is a notable gap. No published security policy or incident response contacts were found, limiting transparency in security governance. The use of multiple third-party scripts introduces potential risk vectors that require ongoing monitoring. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The missing WHOIS data is a concern for domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, publishing security policies, and providing clear incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to meet compliance standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Improve business transparency by providing verified contact information and clarifying domain registration details.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
iClicker
Description
Easy to use, reliable, & focused on pedagogy: meet iClicker, the market-leader in Higher Education student & audience response systems.
Key services
Student response systems, Classroom engagement tools
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.7.1, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Smart Slider 3, FontAwesome 5.9.0, Yoast SEO plugin, WordPress CMS, PHP
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by canonical URL https://)
  • Cookie consent banner for GDPR compliance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Marketo Munchkin
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Marketo Munchkin
Marketing tools
Marketo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to education technology
  3. Privacy and cookie policies are implemented with consent mechanisms
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main page content
  5. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which reduces trust score
  6. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, FontAwesome, and Smart Slider 3 for UI components. SEO is enhanced via the Yoast SEO plugin, and analytics are managed through Google Analytics and Marketo Munchkin scripts. The site uses OneTrust for cookie consent, indicating attention to privacy compliance. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, especially in script loading and caching strategies. Mobile optimization is good, ensuring usability across devices. No hosting provider details were identified from the content. The technical infrastructure supports the business goals but would benefit from improved security configurations and performance tuning.
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 iclicker.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 iclicker.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.