Skip to main content

Security report for mouseflow.com

Mouseflow.com · Technology · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Mouseflow.com is a technology company specializing in digital experience analytics, offering a SaaS platform that provides session replay, heatmaps, conversion funnels, form analytics, and user feedback tools. The company serves a broad target audience including digital marketing, ecommerce, UX design, analytics, product, and CRO teams. With over 210,000 customers worldwide, Mouseflow holds a strong market position as a trusted provider of user behavior insights. The website is professionally designed, well-branded, and rich in relevant content, supporting excellent user experience and navigation. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Bootstrap 5 and integrates multiple third-party services such as Google Analytics, HubSpot, Intercom, and Cookiebot for consent management. Hosting is provided by Linode. While the site is mobile optimized and accessible, performance is somewhat slow, and the SSL certificate is currently invalid or missing, which negatively impacts security and user trust. From a security perspective, Mouseflow demonstrates strong compliance with GDPR, US privacy laws, and holds certifications including ISO 27001, SOC, and PCI. Security best practices such as HSTS, anonymized IPs, MFA, SSO, and AES-256 encryption are implemented. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of modern TLS protocols are critical vulnerabilities that require immediate remediation. Overall, Mouseflow.com presents a credible and professional digital presence with extensive analytics and marketing integrations, strong privacy compliance, and a solid security framework, albeit with critical SSL issues that reduce its security posture. Addressing these SSL and TLS deficiencies will significantly enhance trust and security for users and clients.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 100 · Medium
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. 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. 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

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

Keep watching mouseflow.com

This scan found 18 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. 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
90
Security headers
45
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
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

Mouseflow operates in the technology sector, focusing on digital experience analytics with a SaaS business model. Its competitive advantage lies in comprehensive user behavior tracking tools that combine session replay, heatmaps, funnels, and feedback surveys. The company targets diverse teams across industries, including marketing, ecommerce, UX, analytics, and product management. Revenue streams likely include subscription plans with flexible pricing. The partnership ecosystem includes integrations with major platforms like HubSpot, Google Analytics, and Zendesk, enhancing its market reach. Growth indicators include a large customer base and continuous product updates. The company maintains offices in the USA and Denmark, supporting international operations.

Security posture

Mouseflow exhibits a mature security posture with compliance to major privacy regulations such as GDPR and US privacy laws, and certifications including ISO 27001, SOC, and PCI. Security controls include anonymization of IPs and keystrokes, multi-factor authentication, strict password policies, single sign-on, and AES-256 encryption for data in transit. The website enforces HSTS with preload and includes a cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern TLS protocol support are significant vulnerabilities that expose users to potential risks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies were found, indicating areas for improvement in security governance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Renew and properly configure the SSL certificate to enable HTTPS and modern TLS protocols.
  2. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve security and performance.
  3. Publish a clear incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance transparency and readiness.
  4. Regularly audit third-party integrations and tracking scripts to ensure privacy compliance and minimize risk.
  5. Enhance website performance optimization to improve load times and user experience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap 5 framework and uses jQuery and Slick Carousel for UI components. It integrates Wistia for video content, Cookiebot for cookie consent management, and Google Tag Manager for analytics deployment. Hosting is provided by Linode with DNS managed by Linode nameservers. The site has a large number of resources (334) and a page size of approximately 360 KB, resulting in a slow load time (~16 seconds). SEO is well implemented with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Accessibility and mobile optimization are good. However, the invalid SSL certificate and lack of TLS support are critical technical issues that undermine security and trust.
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 −2Medium29 findingsView report
  3. 75/100Medium29 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.