Skip to main content

Security report for impact.com

Impact Tech, Inc · Technology · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Impact Tech, Inc operates impact.com, a leading SaaS platform specializing in partnership management, including affiliate, influencer, and referral marketing. The company targets brands, publishers, agencies, and creators, offering a comprehensive platform to manage the entire partnership lifecycle. Their market position is strong, supported by extensive case studies, awards, and a broad service offering that includes fraud detection and marketing analytics. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality and clear navigation, supporting a high level of user engagement and trust. Technically, the site is built on WordPress, hosted on WP Engine and Cloudflare, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Sentry, and Osano CMP. However, the SSL certificate is invalid or missing, and no modern TLS protocols are enabled, which significantly impacts the security posture. Security headers are well implemented, but the lack of proper HTTPS reduces overall security confidence. Privacy compliance is strong, with GDPR-consistent policies and consent mechanisms in place. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital presence but requires urgent remediation of SSL and TLS issues to ensure secure user interactions and maintain trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of impact.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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 impact.com

This scan found 12 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

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 impact.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
100,886
Employees
0
Customers
100,812
Third parties
74
Weak passwords
8%

81 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 impact.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Impact.com operates in the technology sector, focusing on partnership marketing SaaS solutions. Their business model revolves around providing a unified platform for brands and publishers to manage diverse partnership types efficiently. The company leverages a marketplace model for affiliates and creators, driving revenue through subscription and service offerings. Their target customers include large enterprises and agencies seeking scalable partnership solutions. The presence of multiple partner programs and a responsible disclosure site indicates a mature partnership ecosystem and a commitment to security transparency. The company maintains a strong social media presence and regularly publishes case studies and insights, reinforcing market leadership and thought leadership in the partnership marketing space.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate security maturity level with several best practices implemented, including security headers like X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, and Content-Security-Policy (report-only). The DMARC policy is configured with a quarantine directive and reporting enabled, enhancing email security. However, critical issues exist with the SSL certificate being invalid or missing and no TLS protocols enabled, which exposes users to potential interception and undermines HTTPS security guarantees. OCSP stapling and session resumption are not enabled, which could affect certificate validation and performance. The site uses a responsible disclosure program, indicating incident response readiness, but no explicit data protection officer contact was found. Overall, while many security controls are in place, the lack of valid SSL/TLS is a significant vulnerability that must be addressed promptly.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately fix the SSL certificate to enable valid HTTPS connections and enable TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols.
  2. Enforce Content Security Policy rather than report-only mode to mitigate XSS and code injection risks.
  3. Enable OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve certificate validation and user experience.
  4. Publish explicit contact information for a Data Protection Officer to enhance GDPR compliance transparency.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerable components are included.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS hosted on WP Engine with Cloudflare as a CDN and security provider. It uses jQuery and integrates multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools including Google Tag Manager, Sentry for error tracking, Osano for consent management, and Marketo for marketing automation. The site is SEO optimized using Yoast SEO and includes structured data in JSON-LD format for enhanced search engine understanding. Performance metrics are not fully available, but the site appears mobile optimized with responsive design. Accessibility is basic but present. The invalid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent technical debt and risk that could impact user trust and search rankings. The DNS setup uses AWS nameservers and Google MX records, with DMARC configured for email security. No DNSSEC or CAA records are present, which could be considered for future hardening.
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. 79/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with impact.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 impact.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.