Skip to main content

Security report for m-files.com

M-Files · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

M-Files is a technology company specializing in intelligent document management software with workflow automation capabilities. Their platform targets knowledge workers and businesses seeking to organize, secure, and streamline information management. The company positions itself as a leading platform for knowledge work automation, founded in 2002, and operates a professional, well-branded website that reflects its market presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress CMS with modern SEO and analytics tools such as Yoast SEO, HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, and Matomo. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and a moderate performance profile. However, some security best practices like security headers and explicit privacy and cookie policies are not evident in the provided content. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data in the HTML. The presence of multiple tracking and marketing scripts indicates extensive user tracking, which may require enhanced privacy compliance measures. The lack of WHOIS data reduces domain trustworthiness, though the website content and structured data suggest a legitimate business. No WAF or blocking mechanisms were detected, allowing full content access. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy from a business and content perspective but would benefit from improved privacy compliance and security transparency to enhance user trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of m-files.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

3 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

  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 m-files.com

This scan found 16 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
85
Email security
80
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
82

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

M-Files operates in the technology sector, focusing on document management and workflow automation software. Their business model revolves around providing a software platform that enhances knowledge work productivity. The company targets enterprise and medium-sized businesses, leveraging a strong brand presence and digital marketing ecosystem including social media and analytics tools. Founded in 2002, M-Files has established itself as a key player in its niche, with a consistent branding strategy and a clear value proposition. The website's extensive use of marketing and tracking technologies suggests a mature digital marketing approach aimed at lead generation and customer engagement. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified from the data provided.

Security posture

The security posture of the M-Files website is moderate. HTTPS is used, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options indicates room for improvement. The site does not expose sensitive information in the HTML, and no vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The extensive use of third-party marketing and analytics scripts introduces potential privacy and security risks that should be managed carefully. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts were found, which could be a gap in transparency and readiness. Overall, the site demonstrates basic security hygiene but should enhance its security headers and publish clear security and privacy policies to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Establish and disclose a formal security policy and incident response plan with dedicated contact channels.
  4. Audit and monitor third-party scripts regularly to minimize privacy risks and potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
M-Files
Description
M-Files provides intelligent document management software with workflow automation, helping businesses organize, secure, and streamline information.
Key services
Intelligent document management software, Workflow automation
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, jQuery, FontAwesome, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot, Facebook Pixel, Matomo
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (implied by canonical URL https://)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Matomo, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads, Bing Ads, Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Matomo
Marketing tools
HubSpot, AttributionApp, Drift
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional corporate site for M-Files document management software
  2. No WHOIS data available, possibly due to privacy or lookup failure
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages detected in provided content
  4. Multiple marketing and analytics scripts are used, indicating extensive user tracking
  5. No security policy or incident response information found
  6. Contact information includes company email and phone from structured data
  7. Site uses WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content
  9. No WAF or blocking detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing Yoast SEO for search engine optimization and multiple analytics and marketing tools such as HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, Matomo, and Facebook Pixel. The site loads a variety of fonts and scripts from reputable CDNs and service providers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. The technical stack is modern and supports a professional digital presence. However, the lack of security headers and privacy policy pages indicates technical debt in security and compliance areas. Hosting provider details were not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs but requires enhancements in security and privacy implementations.
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. 84/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with m-files.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 m-files.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.