Skip to main content

Security report for knowledgeowl.com

KnowledgeOwl · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

KnowledgeOwl is a technology company offering knowledge base software designed to help businesses create effective help content that reduces support tickets and improves team satisfaction. Their website presents a professional and modern design built on the Framer platform, integrating key marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Hotjar. The site includes a cookie consent mechanism compliant with privacy best practices, although a dedicated privacy policy page is not detected in the provided content. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced and consent management in place, but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain registration transparency, which should be further investigated to confirm legitimacy. Overall, the website is well-structured and trustworthy from a user perspective but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

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

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

4 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
    • 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 knowledgeowl.com

This scan found 21 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
40
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
74

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 knowledgeowl.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
411
Employees
0
Customers
410
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
21%

49 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 knowledgeowl.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

KnowledgeOwl operates in the SaaS sector providing knowledge base software targeted at businesses and teams seeking to improve customer support and internal knowledge sharing. The company positions itself as a trusted provider with a free trial offering to attract users. Their marketing ecosystem includes Google Ads and tracking via Hotjar, indicating active user engagement and conversion tracking. The lack of visible contact details and corporate registration information limits full business credibility assessment. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the website content. The business model relies on subscription software sales with a focus on ease of use and fast deployment.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented using Cookiebot and Google Consent Mode. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The missing WHOIS data and lack of a security.txt file reduce transparency and may impact trust from a security perspective. Compliance with GDPR is partially indicated by cookie consent but not fully documented due to missing privacy policy. Incident response readiness and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page detailing GDPR compliance and data handling practices.
  2. Implement and serve security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security-related inquiries.
  4. Establish and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to enhance domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
KnowledgeOwl
Description
Knowledge base software you can trust. Create help content that actually helps—fast answers, fewer tickets, and happier teams. 30-day free trial, no credit card required.
Key services
Knowledge base software, Help content creation, Customer support optimization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Cookiebot, Framer
Frameworks
Framer
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent with opt-in/out
  • Google Consent Mode configured

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager), Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Hotjar
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern front-end framework Framer.
  2. Cookie consent is implemented with Cookiebot and Google Consent Mode configured to deny ad personalization and analytics by default.
  3. No visible privacy policy or terms of service links found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or not publicly available, which is a concern for domain legitimacy verification.
  7. Website content is business-focused and safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Framer platform, leveraging modern web fonts and a responsive design approach. It integrates third-party services such as Google Tag Manager for analytics and Hotjar for user behavior tracking. Cookiebot is used for cookie consent management, with Google Consent Mode configured to restrict ad personalization and analytics by default. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate with no evident blocking scripts. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with additional ARIA attributes and semantic HTML. No CMS other than Framer is detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit in the HTML content.
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. 75/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with knowledgeowl.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 knowledgeowl.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.