Skip to main content

Security report for pandadoc.com

PandaDoc Inc. · Technology · United States

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

PandaDoc Inc. is a mature, enterprise-level technology company founded in 2013, specializing in document workflow automation, e-signature solutions, and CPQ software. The company holds a strong market position with over 50,000 clients and offers a comprehensive suite of services including document generation, deal rooms, smart content, automations, and analytics. Their platform integrates with major CRM and payment systems, enhancing business efficiency and customer experience. Technically, PandaDoc employs a modern tech stack with JavaScript, HubSpot forms, Google Tag Manager, and various marketing and analytics tools. The website is hosted on AWS and uses WordPress CMS with WPML for multilingual support. Despite rich content and good mobile optimization, the website suffers from critical security issues due to an invalid SSL certificate and lack of TLS protocols, which significantly impacts its security posture. Security-wise, PandaDoc demonstrates strong compliance with SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, E-SIGN, and UETA standards, reflecting a robust security framework. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and modern TLS support exposes the site to potential risks. The domain is well-protected and mature, indicating a legitimate and trustworthy business. Overall, while PandaDoc excels in business credibility, content quality, and privacy compliance, it must urgently address its SSL/TLS configuration to improve security and maintain trust. Strategic improvements in SSL deployment and security best practices are recommended to enhance the company's digital security posture.

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

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

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

Keep watching pandadoc.com

This scan found 11 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. 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
85
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
74

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

PandaDoc operates in the technology sector, focusing on SaaS solutions for document management and e-signature workflows. Its competitive advantage lies in its comprehensive platform that streamlines document creation, collaboration, automation, signing, and payment processes. The company targets medium to large enterprises requiring efficient agreement management. Revenue streams likely include subscription plans, enterprise services, and integrations. The extensive partner ecosystem with CRM and payment providers strengthens its market reach. Growth indicators include a mature domain, strong brand presence, and numerous customer testimonials. The company maintains a professional online presence with consistent branding and rich content, supporting its market leadership.

Security posture

PandaDoc exhibits a high level of security maturity with adherence to multiple compliance frameworks such as SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, E-SIGN, and UETA. The presence of a strict DMARC policy and SPF records further enhances email security. However, the current lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of modern TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that could undermine data confidentiality and user trust. The website does not implement HSTS, OCSP stapling, or session resumption, which are recommended for robust HTTPS security. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information was found, indicating potential areas for improvement in security transparency and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable secure HTTPS connections.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) and disable outdated or insecure versions.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with preload to prevent protocol downgrade attacks.
  4. Enable OCSP stapling to improve certificate revocation checking and reduce latency.
  5. Implement session resumption mechanisms to enhance performance and security.
  6. Publish clear incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to improve security transparency.
  7. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and dependencies to avoid vulnerabilities.
  8. Enhance accessibility features and provide detailed data retention policies for privacy compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
PandaDoc Inc.
Registration number
Company Number of
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern JavaScript-based stack, likely using React components, integrated with HubSpot for forms and marketing automation. It employs Google Tag Manager and VWO for analytics and optimization. Hosting is provided by AWS, ensuring scalability and reliability. The site uses WordPress CMS with WPML for multilingual support. Performance is currently slow with a large page size and high resource count, indicating opportunities for optimization. Mobile optimization and SEO practices are good, with proper meta tags and structured data. However, the lack of valid SSL and secure protocols is a significant technical risk that must be addressed promptly.
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. 66/100Medium19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with pandadoc.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 pandadoc.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.