Skip to main content

Security report for infogram.com

Infogram · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

88/100

Risk levelLow

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

Infogram is a mature technology company specializing in AI-powered interactive data visualization tools, serving over 10 million users globally. Their platform enables users to create infographics, charts, dashboards, maps, and social media graphics with ease, targeting businesses, educators, media, government, and nonprofit sectors. The company leverages modern web technologies including React and integrates with Google services for analytics and authentication. Hosting and domain registration are managed through reputable providers, ensuring reliable infrastructure. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and SOC 2 Type 2 compliance, though some improvements such as enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit security headers could enhance their defenses. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a cookie consent mechanism, but the absence of a visible privacy policy and terms of service reduces transparency. Overall, the website is professional, well-designed, and trustworthy, reflecting a strong market position in the data visualization industry.

Scanned

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

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 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 infogram.com

This scan found 10 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
77
Security headers
70
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
88

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 infogram.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
9,583
Employees
1
Customers
9,535
Third parties
47
Weak passwords
11%

Latest record dated 2026-06-09 · 5 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 infogram.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –infogram.com2026-06-09

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

Infogram operates a SaaS business model focused on data visualization and infographic creation, with a broad target audience including marketing teams, educators, and government agencies. Their competitive advantage lies in AI-powered chart recommendations and a rich library of templates and interactive content. The company maintains a strong brand presence with consistent messaging and trust signals such as SOC 2 compliance and customer success stories. Their ecosystem includes integrations and an API, supporting extensibility and enterprise adoption. Growth indicators include a large user base and partnerships with notable organizations. The business appears medium-sized with a long operational history dating back to 1996, positioning it as a stable player in the technology sector.

Security posture

The security maturity of Infogram is good, with HTTPS enforced site-wide and domain registration protections in place. The claimed SOC 2 Type 2 compliance indicates adherence to recognized security standards. However, the lack of DNSSEC and missing explicit security headers represent areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contacts limits transparency and readiness communication. Privacy compliance is partially implemented via cookie consent but lacks a comprehensive privacy policy. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical hardening.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a clear and comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the main website.
  3. Implement and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  5. Provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Infogram
Description
Infogram is an easy-to-use, AI-powered tool for creating stunning infographics, charts, dashboards, maps, and more. Effortlessly design and share interactive data visualizations across various platforms.
Key services
Infographics creation, Reports, Maps, Charts, Dashboards, Slides, Social media graphics, AI-powered chart and infographic generation, API access
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, OneTrust (cookie consent), Zendesk (support chat), Google Identity Services (Google Sign-In)
Frameworks
React
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited domain statuses
  • SOC 2 Type 2 Compliance claimed

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
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 rich content and interactive features
  2. Strong use of modern web technologies and frameworks
  3. Comprehensive navigation with multiple menus and clear structure
  4. Cookie consent mechanism implemented via OneTrust
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service links found in provided content
  6. SOC 2 Type 2 compliance is claimed, indicating attention to security controls
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the main page
  8. Multiple social media references via Twitter handle @infogram
  9. Use of Google Sign-In for authentication
  10. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies, primarily React, and integrates with Google services for analytics and authentication. Hosting infrastructure appears robust, leveraging Amazon Registrar and AWS DNS services. Performance is optimized with preconnect and dns-prefetch hints, and the site is mobile responsive with good accessibility features. The use of OneTrust for cookie consent demonstrates attention to privacy compliance. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Technical debt appears low, with opportunities to enhance security headers and DNS security. Overall, the technical implementation supports a high-quality user experience and scalable operations.
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. 88/100Low16 findingsView report
  2. 88/100Low16 findingsView report
  3. 88/100Low16 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with infogram.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 infogram.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.