Skip to main content

Security report for reclaim.ai

Reclaim.ai, Inc. · Technology · N/A

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

Reclaim.ai, Inc. operates a leading AI-powered calendar application designed to optimize productivity for individuals, teams, and organizations by automating scheduling of tasks, habits, meetings, and breaks. Positioned as the #1 AI calendar app, it integrates seamlessly with Google Calendar and Outlook Calendar, offering a free forever plan alongside premium subscription tiers. The company emphasizes user privacy by not training AI on user data and supports a broad range of integrations with popular task management and communication platforms. Technically, the website is built on Webflow CMS, hosted via Cloudflare, and employs modern web technologies including Lottie animations, jQuery, and various marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Intercom, and Google Tag Manager. Security posture is strong with SOC 2 Type II certification, GDPR compliance, and robust HTTP security headers, although TLS protocols could be updated to modern standards. The site demonstrates excellent design, user experience, and trust indicators, supported by active social media presence and comprehensive legal and privacy documentation.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of reclaim.ai. View the latest report

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

3 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 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

  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 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 reclaim.ai

This scan found 12 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
72
Security headers
85
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
82

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention reclaim.ai, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for reclaim.ai right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Reclaim.ai targets productivity-conscious users across individual professionals, teams, and enterprises, leveraging AI to create measurable time savings and improve work-life balance. Its SaaS business model includes a free tier to attract users and premium plans for advanced features and organizational controls. The company maintains a strong market position with over 500,000 users and 60,000 companies, supported by integrations with major platforms like Slack, Jira, Asana, and Zoom. Trust signals such as SOC 2 certification, GDPR compliance, and customer testimonials reinforce its credibility. The affiliate program and referral incentives drive organic growth. The company’s ecosystem includes partnerships with Google Workspace and G2 for marketplace presence and reviews. Strategic focus on enterprise security, onboarding, and live support indicates maturity and readiness for scaling.

Security posture

Reclaim.ai exhibits a mature security posture with implementation of key HTTP security headers including HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection. The SSL certificate is valid and not self-signed, but the absence of TLS 1.2 or 1.3 protocols is a notable gap. The company holds SOC 2 Type II certification and complies with GDPR, indicating strong data protection and privacy practices. Cookie consent is managed via Osano CMP, ensuring user consent for tracking. No critical vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE were detected. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and CAA records appear misconfigured. Incident response contact information is not publicly disclosed, which could be improved. Overall, the security culture is proactive with a dedicated trust center and responsible disclosure policy.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade SSL/TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols for enhanced encryption.
  2. Enable and properly configure DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and cache poisoning.
  3. Correct or remove undefined CAA DNS records to ensure proper certificate authority authorization.
  4. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
  5. Disclose incident response contact channels publicly to enhance trust and readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages a modern and scalable technical infrastructure based on Webflow CMS and Cloudflare hosting, ensuring fast load times and high availability. The tech stack includes JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Lottie for animations, and integrates marketing and analytics tools like HubSpot, Intercom, and Google Tag Manager. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices with responsive design and accessibility considerations. Performance is rated fast, with good SEO practices evident in metadata and structured data. Technical risks include outdated TLS protocol support and minor DNS misconfigurations. The use of multiple third-party integrations and tracking services requires ongoing privacy and security management to maintain compliance and user 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. 85/100 −1Low18 findingsView report
  2. 86/100 −2Low17 findingsView report
  3. 88/100Low16 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with reclaim.ai. 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 reclaim.ai.

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.