Skip to main content

Security report for responsivevoice.org

ResponsiveVoice.JS AI Text to Speech · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ResponsiveVoice.JS AI Text to Speech is a technology-focused company providing smart text-to-speech plugins and APIs for websites. Established in 2014, it offers over 51 voices and languages, targeting web developers and businesses seeking to enhance user engagement through AI-driven voice technology. The company positions itself as a popular AI Text-To-Speech API provider with a small business footprint primarily operating in the US. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common SEO and analytics tools such as Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Hotjar. It uses Cloudflare DNS but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, indicating room for security improvements. The site is mobile-optimized with good design and navigation, though privacy and cookie policies are absent, impacting compliance scores. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but missing explicit security policies and incident response information. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security best practices.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of responsivevoice.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 100 · Medium
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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

  2. 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

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  4. 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 responsivevoice.org

This scan found 21 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
65
Security headers
40
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
69

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

The company operates in the technology sector, focusing on AI text-to-speech services delivered via SaaS/API models. Its market positioning as a popular provider suggests competitive advantages in voice diversity and ease of integration. Revenue likely derives from subscriptions or licensing of their API and plugins. The target customers are developers and businesses integrating voice capabilities into websites. The presence of social media channels indicates active marketing and customer engagement. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS is justified for a small tech company. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the data. Growth indicators include ongoing website updates and active analytics tracking.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented, and domain status flags prevent unauthorized transfers or deletions. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and published security policies or incident response plans indicates gaps in security best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file reduces transparency. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness cannot be assessed due to lack of information. Overall, the security culture appears basic but functional, with recommendations to improve policy transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve protection against common web attacks.
  4. Create and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and incident response.
  5. Provide clear contact information including security and incident response contacts to improve trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ResponsiveVoice.JS AI Text to Speech
Description
Smart text-to-speech plugins for your website. A creative way to engage your audience! Over 51 different voices and languages ✓ Safe payments ✓ Free Trial!
Key services
Text-to-Speech API, Website plugins for TTS, Multiple voices and languages
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts, Cloudflare DNS, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar, Bootstrap 4
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited etc.

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel, Hotjar
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress CMS with common SEO and analytics plugins
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on main page
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on main page
  4. Social media presence on Facebook and Twitter (X)
  5. Uses Cloudflare DNS but DNSSEC not enabled
  6. HTTPS is enabled and active
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  8. Tracking scripts for analytics and marketing present
  9. Content is focused on AI text-to-speech technology services
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with popular plugins like Yoast SEO for SEO optimization and Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and Hotjar for analytics and marketing. The hosting setup includes Cloudflare DNS but lacks DNSSEC. The site is mobile-optimized and uses Google Fonts and Bootstrap 4 for styling and layout. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical debt is low, but security enhancements are needed. Modernization opportunities include adding security headers and improving privacy compliance. Technical risks include potential DNS spoofing without DNSSEC and privacy compliance issues due to missing policies.
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. 69/100 +6Medium28 findingsView report
  2. 63/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with responsivevoice.org. 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 responsivevoice.org.

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.