Skip to main content

Security report for lucid.app

Lucid Software Inc. · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Lucid Software Inc. operates the lucid.app domain, providing a comprehensive visual collaboration suite including Lucidchart and Lucidspark. The company targets teams and enterprises seeking intelligent diagramming and virtual whiteboarding solutions, positioning itself as a leader in the technology sector for collaboration tools. Their business model is SaaS-based with multiple integrated products, serving a global audience with a strong presence in the United States. The website demonstrates excellent content quality, professional design, and consistent branding, supporting a high level of business credibility. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks such as Angular and integrates various third-party services including Google APIs, Microsoft Teams SDK, and Osano for cookie compliance. Hosting is managed via Akamai CDN, ensuring global availability. However, performance metrics are not available, and accessibility is basic but functional. SEO practices are good with proper meta tags and structured data. Security posture reveals critical issues: the SSL certificate is invalid or missing, and no TLS protocols are enabled, which is a significant risk for user data protection and trust. Security headers are well configured, but the lack of valid HTTPS severely impacts the overall security score. Privacy compliance is good, with a clear privacy policy, cookie consent mechanism, and GDPR compliance indicators. Contact information is transparent and professional, though no explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. Overall, while the business and technical maturity are strong, the critical SSL/TLS misconfiguration poses a major risk. Strategic remediation of SSL issues is essential to restore trust and secure communications. The company should also consider publishing explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to enhance security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching lucid.app

This scan found 12 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
50
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
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

Lucid Software Inc. holds a strong market position in the visual collaboration technology sector, offering a suite of products that cater to enterprise and team collaboration needs. Their competitive advantage lies in integrated tools that support diagramming, whiteboarding, and cloud-scale visualization. Revenue streams are primarily subscription-based SaaS offerings. The company maintains partnerships and integrations with major platforms such as Google Workspace, Microsoft Office, Slack, and Atlassian, enhancing ecosystem connectivity. Growth indicators include continuous feature flag testing, A/B experiments, and multi-regional data centers. The company operates globally with a focus on the US market. Strategic observations suggest a mature product portfolio with ongoing innovation and customer engagement through surveys and analytics.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate but compromised by critical SSL/TLS configuration failures. The presence of security headers and CSP with reporting indicates good security hygiene. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols expose the site to man-in-the-middle attacks and undermine user trust. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, supporting GDPR compliance. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure contacts are found, which could be improved. The site uses secure cookies with SameSite and Secure flags. Overall, the security culture appears proactive but requires urgent remediation of transport layer security.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately fix and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user communications.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols to enhance encryption strength.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and reliability.
  4. Publish a clear vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information to improve security transparency.
  5. Continue to maintain and enhance cookie consent mechanisms and privacy compliance to align with evolving regulations.
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages a modern Angular framework (version 16.1.2) with extensive client-side JavaScript and integration of multiple third-party APIs and SDKs. Hosting and CDN services are provided by Akamai, ensuring robust global delivery. The site uses Osano for cookie compliance and Google Tag Manager for analytics management. Despite the modern tech stack, the SSL/TLS configuration is critically flawed, lacking valid certificates and protocol support. Performance data is unavailable, but the site appears optimized for mobile with responsive design elements. Accessibility is basic but present. Technical risks include potential exposure due to insecure transport and lack of session resumption mechanisms.
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 lucid.app. 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 lucid.app.

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.