Skip to main content

Security report for questback.com

Questback · Technology · Norway

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Questback is a well-established technology company specializing in feedback and survey solutions with over 24 years of experience. Their platform offers comprehensive feedback systems, insights dashboards, and reporting tools targeted primarily at organizations seeking to optimize their operations through data-driven feedback. The company maintains a professional online presence with consistent branding and a focus on privacy and compliance, including GDPR adherence and ISO 27001 certification. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and analytics integrations, ensuring good performance and mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement and security headers, though explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly detailed. The absence of WHOIS data introduces some uncertainty regarding domain registration legitimacy, but overall the business credibility remains high based on website content and trust signals. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around security policies and domain registration details to further strengthen trust.

Scanned

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

5 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 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"

    • 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 questback.com

This scan found 22 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
57
Security headers
25
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
72

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

Questback operates in the B2B SaaS sector, providing feedback and survey platforms to a global audience. Their market positioning leverages long-standing experience and certifications like ISO 27001 to differentiate from competitors. The business model focuses on subscription-based services with value-added analytics and reporting. Target customers include enterprises and organizations across various industries seeking to improve engagement and decision-making through feedback. The company demonstrates growth potential through digital marketing, social media engagement, and partnerships with analytics and scheduling platforms. However, the lack of publicly available domain registration data and limited security transparency could be areas for improvement to maintain competitive advantage and customer trust.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and implements key security headers, indicating a mature security posture. Cookie consent and privacy policies align with GDPR requirements, reflecting compliance awareness. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy, incident response page, and vulnerability disclosure program suggests gaps in transparency and readiness communication. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The use of third-party scripts like Google Tag Manager and Ahrefs Analytics is standard but requires ongoing monitoring for security risks. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by publishing explicit security documentation and providing direct security contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and readiness.
  2. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide direct security contact emails (e.g., security@questback.com) for incident reporting.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Clarify domain registration details and consider publishing WHOIS information to enhance trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Questback AS
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Questback
Description
Questback is a unique feedback system with over 24+ years of feedback experience. Make your organisation reach its full potential with us!
Key services
Feedback platform, Survey solutions, Insights dashboard, Reporting tools
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, jQuery, Calendly, Vimeo player, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Ahrefs Analytics
Frameworks
Yoast SEO Premium
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Ahrefs Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Ahrefs Analytics, Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Calendly
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 no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Content is business-focused and professionally presented.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie compliance mechanisms in place.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, which reduces trustworthiness score.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response page found.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  8. Multiple external trusted analytics and marketing services used.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO Premium plugin, ensuring strong SEO capabilities. It integrates modern technologies including jQuery, Calendly for scheduling, Vimeo for video content, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. Performance is optimized with preconnects, preloads, and lazy loading techniques. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with good semantic HTML structure and meta tags. Analytics are implemented via Google Tag Manager and Ahrefs Analytics, supporting data-driven marketing. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were observed. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and performant web presence suitable for enterprise clients.
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. 72/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with questback.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 questback.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.