Skip to main content

Security report for invoicing.co

Invoice Ninja · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Invoice Ninja operates as a SaaS platform specializing in invoicing and billing solutions primarily targeting freelancers and small businesses. The website serves as a web application built with Flutter Web technology, integrating modern authentication methods such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft OAuth. The platform offers key services including online invoicing, payment processing, and PDF invoice generation. The market position is that of a niche invoicing software provider with a small business scale and moderate brand consistency. From a technical perspective, the site leverages a modern tech stack with Flutter, OAuth libraries, and client-side PDF rendering. Hosting appears to be via Cloudflare, with analytics implemented through Google Tag Manager and Cloudflare Insights. Performance and mobile optimization are moderate to good, though SEO and accessibility features are basic. The site uses service workers for offline capabilities and update management. Security posture shows some strengths such as HTTPS usage (inferred), OAuth authentication, and service worker management. However, no security headers are detected, and no visible privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating gaps in compliance and security best practices. No contact information or incident response channels are provided, limiting transparency and trust. Overall, the website is functional and moderately secure but lacks comprehensive privacy compliance and visible business contact details. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy disclosures, and contact transparency would enhance trust and compliance. The risk level is moderate with no critical vulnerabilities detected in the static content analyzed.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

7 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 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 invoicing.co

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. 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
25
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
65

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

Invoice Ninja targets freelancers and small businesses with a SaaS invoicing and billing platform. Its competitive advantage lies in offering an integrated invoicing solution with modern authentication and PDF generation capabilities. The business model is subscription-based SaaS, focusing on ease of use and integration with payment providers. The company appears to maintain a lean operation with a small team, leveraging cloud hosting and third-party authentication services. Growth indicators include active use of analytics and modern web technologies. No explicit partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the data. The platform's niche focus positions it well within the invoicing software market, competing with other SaaS providers in this space.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The use of HTTPS, OAuth authentication, and service workers for update management are positive indicators. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are visible, indicating potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response readiness is unclear due to lack of contact channels for security issues. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the static content. Overall, the security culture appears functional but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to enhance transparency.
  4. Improve SEO and accessibility features to enhance user experience and reach.
  5. Regularly audit third-party libraries and scripts to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Invoice Ninja
Description
Invoice Ninja is a web-based invoicing platform providing invoicing, payment, and billing services primarily for freelancers and small businesses.
Key services
Online invoicing, Payment processing integration, PDF invoice generation
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Flutter Web, Google Tag Manager, pdf.js, Apple OAuth, Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL), Google Sign-In
Frameworks
Flutter
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of service workers for offline support and updates
  • OAuth integrations for authentication

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Cloudflare Insights
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cloudflare Insights
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a Flutter web app with minimal static HTML content.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in HTML.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in HTML content.
  4. OAuth integrations with Google, Apple, and Microsoft indicate modern authentication support.
  5. Use of service workers for offline support and update management.
  6. Google Tag Manager and Cloudflare Insights used for analytics and performance monitoring.
  7. No security headers detected in HTML content; SSL status unknown.
  8. No forms or input fields visible in static HTML snapshot.
  9. No social media links or explicit company contact information found.
  10. No structured data (JSON-LD) or Open Graph metadata present.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Flutter Web, indicating a modern single-page application architecture. It integrates OAuth authentication from major providers (Google, Apple, Microsoft), enhancing user login security. PDF generation is handled client-side via pdf.js. Hosting is likely via Cloudflare, supported by Cloudflare Insights scripts. Performance is moderate with service workers enabling offline support and update notifications. However, the site lacks visible SEO metadata and accessibility enhancements. No CMS is detected, suggesting a custom or framework-based build. The technical stack is modern but could improve in SEO and security header implementation to reduce technical debt and risks.
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 invoicing.co. 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 invoicing.co.

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.