Skip to main content

Security report for qaassistant.com

QA Assistant LLC · Manufacturing · United States

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

35/100

Risk levelHigh

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

QA Assistant LLC operates the website qaassistant.com, offering specialized APQP software solutions including FMEA, Control Plan, PPAP, and project management tools tailored for manufacturing and quality assurance professionals. Established in 2006, the company positions itself as a niche provider with a comprehensive all-in-one software suite designed to streamline quality processes and document control. The website emphasizes ease of use, robust document versioning, automated approval workflows, and powerful customizable reporting features, supported by a 24/7 support hub with extensive training resources. Technically, the website is built with standard web technologies (HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript) and demonstrates good SEO practices, mobile optimization, and accessibility at a basic level. The site uses structured data to enhance search engine understanding and provides a clean, professional user experience with clear navigation and consistent branding. No major CMS or third-party analytics tools are detected, indicating a custom or lightweight platform. From a security perspective, the site employs standard HTTP headers to control caching and browser compatibility but lacks advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security. The presence of HTTPS is implied by base href but not explicitly confirmed in the provided data. Forms are present for free trial signup but no direct contact emails or phone numbers are exposed, reducing attack surface. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found, which could be improved. Overall, the website reflects a mature, credible business with a strong focus on quality management software for manufacturing sectors. The security posture is adequate but could benefit from enhanced headers and published policies. Privacy compliance is basic with cookie consent and privacy policy present but no explicit GDPR statements. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

8 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  4. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

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

Keep watching qaassistant.com

This scan found 24 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
43
Average
35

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 · found on this site
  • 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

QA Assistant LLC targets manufacturing and quality assurance sectors with a SaaS model offering APQP and related quality management software. Their competitive advantage lies in an all-inclusive package with concurrent licensing, enabling team collaboration. The company leverages a long operational history since 2006 to build trust and market presence. Revenue streams likely include subscriptions and enterprise licensing. The target customers are quality engineers, project managers, and manufacturing professionals requiring audit-ready documentation and process control. The company maintains a focused partnership ecosystem with no visible external partners or subsidiaries. Strategic observations include a strong emphasis on customer support, training, and continuous product upgrades, positioning them well in a niche market with moderate competition.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with basic security headers and HTTPS usage implied. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are detected. However, the absence of advanced security headers and incident response information indicates room for improvement. The lack of visible security contact channels or vulnerability disclosure policies may limit responsiveness to security incidents. Data protection practices appear minimal but adequate for the business type, with no direct email exposure and use of consent mechanisms for cookies. Compliance with GDPR is not explicitly stated, which could pose regulatory risks for EU users. Overall, the security posture is sufficient for a small SaaS provider but should be enhanced to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve defense-in-depth.
  2. Publish a dedicated incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy with clear contact channels to enhance security transparency and readiness.
  3. Explicitly state GDPR compliance measures and update privacy policy to reflect data protection practices for EU users.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards for broader user inclusivity.
  5. Consider integrating third-party security and performance monitoring tools to proactively detect and mitigate risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
QA Assistant LLC
Description
QA Assistant Studio MAX includes APQP software with Design FMEA software, Process FMEA software, PPAP software, Control Plan software, Process Flow Chart software, Work Instruction software, Part Submission Warrants, Project Planning, and more.
Key services
APQP document creation, Document control with versioning and approval workflows, Project management, Custom and built-in reporting, 24/7 support hub with training videos
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • No-cache headers to prevent caching of sensitive data
  • Use of HTTPS base href

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides comprehensive APQP and quality management software solutions
  2. Strong emphasis on document control, project management, and reporting
  3. Includes free trial signup with detailed form fields
  4. No direct company emails or phone numbers visible on homepage; contact via forms
  5. Social media presence on Twitter (X) only
  6. No visible third-party analytics or advertising scripts
  7. Good SEO and structured data usage
  8. Security policies and terms are linked but not deeply detailed on homepage
  9. No visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure pages
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a clean, standards-compliant HTML5 structure with CSS and JavaScript for interactivity and styling. No major frameworks or CMS platforms are detected, suggesting a custom-built or lightweight solution. Performance appears moderate with no heavy external dependencies or tracking scripts. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design elements. SEO is well addressed through meta tags, canonical links, and structured data. Technical debt is low based on the provided snapshot, but opportunities exist to modernize security headers and accessibility compliance. Hosting provider details are not evident, limiting infrastructure assessment. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional and functional user experience aligned with business goals.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with qaassistant.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 qaassistant.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.