Skip to main content

Security report for responsetap.com

ResponseTap · Technology · United Kingdom

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

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ResponseTap is a UK-based technology company specializing in intelligent call tracking and analytics software designed to help businesses and marketing agencies understand which campaigns drive phone calls. The company positions itself as a comprehensive solution in the call tracking market and is now part of the parent company Infinity. The website is professionally designed, mobile-optimized, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain transparency and legitimacy. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS and cookie consent implemented, but lacks visible security policies or incident response information. Privacy compliance is basic, with no explicit privacy policy detected in the provided content. Overall, the website presents a credible business front but would benefit from improved transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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 responsetap.com

This scan found 22 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. 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
52
Security headers
20
Email security
55
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
68

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 responsetap.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
48
Employees
0
Customers
48
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
10%

3 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for responsetap.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

ResponseTap operates in the technology sector, offering SaaS call tracking and analytics services targeting businesses and marketing agencies. Its business model revolves around subscription-based software services with integrations into popular marketing platforms. The company leverages customer case studies and integrations as trust signals. Being part of Infinity suggests a broader corporate structure. The website content and structure indicate a focus on UK and US markets with multilingual support. The marketing ecosystem includes advanced tracking and retargeting tools, positioning ResponseTap competitively in the call tracking niche.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and a cookie consent mechanism, indicating baseline security and privacy awareness. However, the lack of security headers, absence of a published security policy, and no incident response contact reduce the overall security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The use of multiple third-party scripts necessitates ongoing security audits. The missing WHOIS data is a significant trust concern. Compliance with GDPR is implied by cookie consent but not explicitly documented. Enhancing security documentation and transparency would improve posture.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the homepage.
  2. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Provide a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Disclose domain registration details or ensure WHOIS data is publicly available to improve trust.
  5. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and update them to mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Registration number
06613420
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ResponseTap
Description
ResponseTap provides intelligent call tracking solutions that reveal the campaigns, channels, and keywords that drive customers to pick up the phone, enabling marketers to optimize their marketing effectiveness.
Key services
Call tracking, Call analytics, Speech analytics, Smart Match technology, Integrations with marketing platforms
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.4.1, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Wistia video embed, OneTrust cookie consent, WordPress CMS, WPML multilingual plugin
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by URL)
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, FullStory
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, FullStory
Marketing tools
Drift chat
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia
  2. Professional design and clear navigation structure
  3. Strong marketing and analytics integration
  4. No visible security policy or incident response information
  5. WHOIS data missing, raising concerns about domain registration transparency
  6. Cookie consent implemented with OneTrust
  7. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in provided content
  8. Contact phone number clearly displayed and contact page linked
  9. Website uses WordPress CMS with multilingual support
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with multilingual support via WPML plugin. It uses modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery 3.4.1 and integrates Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and FullStory for analytics and user behavior tracking. Video content is embedded using Wistia. Cookie consent is managed by OneTrust. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by optimizing third-party scripts and caching strategies. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced for compliance.
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 responsetap.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 responsetap.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.