Skip to main content

Security report for rzp.io

Razorpay · Finance · India

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Razorpay is a leading Indian fintech company specializing in online payment solutions, offering a comprehensive payment suite that supports multiple payment methods including netbanking, credit/debit cards, and UPI. The company is well-established with a domain age dating back to 2013, reflecting its maturity in the market. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and targets businesses and merchants in India seeking reliable payment processing services. Technically, the site leverages modern technologies such as Segment analytics, Sentry error tracking, and AWS hosting, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and error monitoring in place, though there is room for improvement in DNS security and explicit security policy disclosures. Privacy compliance is limited due to the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies, which should be addressed to meet regulatory standards. Overall, Razorpay's website reflects a credible and professional fintech service provider with a solid technical foundation and good market positioning.

Scanned

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

4 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 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. 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. 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

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

Keep watching rzp.io

This scan found 20 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
72
Security headers
65
Email security
77
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
75

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

Razorpay operates in the finance and technology sectors, providing payment gateway services primarily to Indian businesses. Its business model revolves around facilitating online payments and financial transactions, positioning itself as a key player in India's digital payments ecosystem. The company likely generates revenue through transaction fees and value-added financial services. The website's content and integrations suggest a focus on enterprise and large business customers. The use of advanced analytics and A/B testing indicates a data-driven approach to customer engagement and product optimization. No direct parent or subsidiary companies were identified from the provided data. The company maintains a strong partnership ecosystem with major cloud providers and analytics platforms, enhancing its operational capabilities.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of security monitoring tools like Sentry. The absence of DNSSEC is a minor gap that could be addressed to enhance DNS security. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analyzed content. However, the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates gaps in transparency and formal security governance. Privacy compliance is also limited, with no visible cookie consent or privacy policy, which could pose regulatory risks. Overall, the security posture is solid technically but could benefit from improved policy disclosures and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Implement and disclose a formal vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  4. Provide clear contact information for security incidents, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
  5. Enhance cookie consent mechanisms to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Razorpay
Description
Online Payments India: Start Accepting Payments Instantly with Razorpay's Payment Suite, which Supports Netbanking, Credit Card & Debit Cards, UPI etc.
Key services
Payment gateway, Payment links, Payment buttons, UPI payments, Credit and debit card processing, Netbanking payments
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Segment Analytics, Sentry, AWS DNS, Google Analytics, Framer (CMS/website builder), Clarity (Microsoft Clarity analytics), Refix AI script
Frameworks
Framer
Platforms
AWS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Sentry for error monitoring
  • Use of Segment and Lumberjack for analytics with privacy considerations
  • No DNSSEC enabled (potential improvement area)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Segment, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Lumberjack
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Segment, Microsoft Clarity, Lumberjack (Razorpay internal analytics)
Marketing tools
Segment, Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern analytics and error tracking tools.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found in the provided content.
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers in the HTML content.
  4. Strong branding and consistent design.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  6. WHOIS data shows domain is stable and not privacy protected.
  7. Website is hosted on AWS with multiple AWS DNS servers.
  8. HTTPS is enforced with good SSL configuration.
  9. Use of multiple A/B testing and experiment frameworks.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Framer as the CMS and leverages a modern JavaScript stack with integrations for Segment analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics, and Sentry for error tracking. Hosting is provided via AWS with multiple AWS DNS servers configured, though DNSSEC is not enabled. The site includes multiple A/B testing and experimentation frameworks, indicating a mature approach to user experience optimization. Performance is moderate with deferred script loading and asynchronous analytics scripts. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO meta tags are properly configured. Accessibility features are basic and could be improved. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust but could benefit from enhanced accessibility and DNS security improvements.
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 rzp.io. 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 rzp.io.

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.