Skip to main content

Security report for mouseflow.com

Mouseflow.com · Technology · Denmark

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Mouseflow.com is a well-established digital experience analytics company founded in 2009, offering a SaaS platform that provides session replay, heatmaps, funnels, forms, and user feedback tools to optimize website user experience and conversions. The company targets website owners, digital marketers, and UX professionals globally, positioning itself as a reliable and professional player in the technology sector. The website demonstrates excellent content quality, professional branding, and consistent messaging aligned with its business model. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frameworks like Bootstrap 5 and integrates various third-party services such as Cookiebot for consent management, Wistia for video hosting, HubSpot for marketing and forms, and Sentry for error tracking. Hosting is provided by Linode, and the site is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, accessibility, and SEO, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with a strong SSL configuration and employs best practices such as cookie consent and error monitoring. However, explicit security headers like CSP and X-Frame-Options are not clearly detected and could be improved. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found. Privacy compliance is strong, with comprehensive privacy and cookie policies and GDPR adherence. Overall, Mouseflow.com presents a low-risk profile with high business credibility, good technical implementation, and solid privacy compliance. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a dedicated security policy, and adding a vulnerability disclosure mechanism to further strengthen trust and security posture.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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. 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 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 mouseflow.com

This scan found 21 issues across 5 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
42
Security headers
45
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
75

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

Mouseflow operates in the competitive digital analytics market, focusing on user behavior insights to improve website UX and conversions. Its SaaS model generates revenue through subscriptions to its analytics platform. The company leverages partnerships with marketing and analytics providers like HubSpot and Google Ads, enhancing its ecosystem. The target customers are businesses seeking to optimize digital experiences, ranging from SMEs to enterprises. The company’s longevity since 2009 and consistent branding indicate stable growth and market presence. The integration of advanced analytics features such as friction scoring and journey mapping provides competitive advantages. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified, suggesting independent operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and use of cookie consent mechanisms aligned with GDPR. The integration of Sentry indicates proactive error monitoring. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. No incident response or security policy pages were found, which could limit transparency in case of security events. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The domain registration is transparent and consistent with the business, supporting trustworthiness. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by formalizing security policies and headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and incident response procedures to increase transparency and trust.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerable versions are in use.
  5. Enhance user privacy controls by providing more granular consent options and clear data retention policies.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Mouseflow.com
Description
Improve UX and conversions with digital experience analytics! Use session replay, heatmaps, and feedback to improve website user experience
Key services
Session Replay, Heatmaps, Funnels, Forms, User Feedback
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Bootstrap 5, jQuery, Cookiebot, Wistia (video embedding), Google Tag Manager, Sentry (error tracking), Cloudflare (implied by DNS and scripts), HubSpot Forms
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data found in HTML
  • Use of Sentry for error monitoring

Analytics and tracking

Services
Mouseflow Analytics, Google Analytics (implied), HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Cookiebot, HubSpot, Mouseflow own tracking, G2Crowd
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy implemented
  3. Multiple embedded videos with transcripts for accessibility
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices
  5. No exposed sensitive data or security misconfigurations detected
  6. Social media presence is consistent and professional
  7. No signs of phishing, malware, or suspicious behavior
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform enhanced with Bootstrap 5 for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It uses Yoast SEO for search engine optimization and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. Hosting is provided by Linode, indicating a reliable infrastructure. The site integrates multiple third-party services including Wistia for video content, HubSpot for marketing automation and forms, and Sentry for error tracking. Performance optimizations such as lazy loading and caching (WP Rocket) are implemented, contributing to fast load times. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with structured data (JSON-LD) used for SEO and rich snippets. Overall, the technical stack is modern, well-integrated, and supports a high-quality user experience.
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. 75/100 +2Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 73/100 −3Medium29 findingsView report
  3. 76/100Low25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with mouseflow.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 mouseflow.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.