Skip to main content

Security report for marker.io

Marker.io · Technology · Iceland

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Marker.io is a mature SaaS company founded in 2011, specializing in visual website feedback and bug reporting tools that integrate seamlessly with popular project management and issue tracking platforms. The company targets agencies, software development teams, ecommerce businesses, and enterprises, offering a comprehensive solution to streamline bug reporting and client feedback collection. Their market position is strong with over 3000 active customers and multiple industry certifications including SOC 2 Type II and GDPR compliance. Technically, the website is built on Webflow CMS and leverages a modern technology stack including Google Analytics, Segment, Intercom, and ProfitWell for analytics and marketing. Hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare and NameCheap respectively, ensuring fast performance and robust infrastructure. The site is well optimized for mobile and accessibility, with good SEO practices and rich multimedia content enhancing user engagement. From a security perspective, Marker.io demonstrates a strong posture with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and privacy tools to protect sensitive data. The presence of SOC 2 Type II certification and GDPR readiness further reinforce their commitment to security and compliance. However, the absence of a public incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure program suggests areas for improvement. Overall, Marker.io presents a professional, trustworthy, and secure online presence with excellent content quality and technical implementation. The company should consider enhancing transparency around incident response and vulnerability management to further strengthen trust and security culture.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of marker.io. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  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 marker.io

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
62
Security headers
60
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
76

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

Marker.io operates in the technology sector as a SaaS provider focused on website feedback and bug reporting. Their business model revolves around subscription plans with a free trial, targeting agencies, software developers, ecommerce, and enterprise clients. The company benefits from a broad integration ecosystem with tools like Jira, Trello, Asana, GitHub, and others, which enhances its competitive advantage. Customer testimonials and third-party reviews on platforms like G2 and Capterra indicate strong market acceptance. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS is justified and consistent with their business type. Growth indicators include extensive analytics and marketing tool usage, and a clear focus on security and compliance. Strategic partnerships appear limited to integration partners and review platforms.

Security posture

Marker.io exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enabled and multiple security headers implemented. The company holds SOC 2 Type II certification and complies with GDPR, indicating robust data protection and privacy practices. The website includes privacy tools to obfuscate sensitive data and a cookie consent mechanism with granular preferences. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the source. However, the lack of a public incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and may impact incident handling readiness. The use of Intercom for contact without direct security contact emails is noted. Overall, the security culture appears strong but could benefit from enhanced public security governance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated incident response policy page with clear contact channels for security issues.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Explicitly state data retention policies and privacy practices to improve transparency.
  4. Provide direct security contact emails (e.g., security@marker.io) to facilitate communication.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and integrations to mitigate supply chain risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Marker.io
Description
Marker.io provides a visual website feedback and bug reporting tool that collects client feedback and reports bugs directly into project management tools like Jira, Trello, Asana, and Github with screenshots, annotations, and console logs.
Key services
Visual website feedback, Bug reporting, Annotations, Session replay, Integrations with PM and issue trackers
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow CMS, Google Analytics, Segment, Intercom, ProfitWell, Clearbit, Facebook Pixel, Wistia video embeds, YouTube embeds
Frameworks
Webflow
Platforms
Cloudflare DNS, NameCheap Registrar
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • SOC 2 Type II certification
  • GDPR compliance
  • Privacy tools to obfuscate sensitive data
  • Cookie consent banner with preferences

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Segment, ProfitWell
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Segment
Marketing tools
Intercom, ProfitWell, Clearbit
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 multimedia.
  2. Strong focus on security and privacy with dedicated pages and certifications.
  3. Comprehensive integrations with major project management and issue tracking tools.
  4. Active use of modern analytics and marketing tools with consent mechanisms.
  5. Clear business positioning and customer testimonials enhance trust.
  6. No exposed sensitive data or security vulnerabilities detected in source.
  7. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; uses Intercom for contact.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern and scalable infrastructure using Webflow CMS, Cloudflare DNS, and NameCheap registrar. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Segment, Intercom, ProfitWell, and Clearbit, enabling comprehensive data collection and user engagement tracking. Performance is optimized with asynchronous script loading and video embedding via Wistia and YouTube. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with proper meta tags and SEO optimization. Technical risks are minimal, but reliance on multiple third-party scripts necessitates ongoing security monitoring. The domain age and registration details align well with the company's maturity and market presence.
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. 76/100Low29 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with marker.io. 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 marker.io.

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.