Skip to main content

Security report for sendfox.com

Sumo Group, Inc. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SendFox, operated by Sumo Group, Inc., is a technology company providing affordable and simple email marketing tools targeted primarily at content creators and small businesses. The platform offers key services such as email campaigns, automations, landing pages, and scheduled emails, positioning itself as a cost-effective solution with a strong partnership with AppSumo. The website demonstrates excellent content quality, consistent branding, and good user experience, supported by testimonials and social proof. Technically, the site uses a modern tech stack including Apache, Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, Stripe, and ProfitWell, hosted on AWS infrastructure. However, the website suffers from a critical security deficiency due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which severely impacts its security posture. Privacy compliance is partial, with privacy and terms of service pages present but lacking cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the business credibility is strong, but security improvements are urgently needed.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of sendfox.com. 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

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. 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

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

Keep watching sendfox.com

This scan found 18 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
50
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
57

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

SendFox operates in the competitive SaaS email marketing sector, focusing on content creators who require simple, affordable tools to grow their audience. Its business model includes a free tier with paid upgrades, leveraging partnerships like AppSumo for distribution. The company emphasizes ease of use, automation, and smart landing pages to differentiate itself. The presence of multiple testimonials and a clear target audience indicates a focused market approach. The use of modern marketing and analytics tools suggests a data-driven growth strategy. However, the lack of explicit contact emails or phone numbers on the homepage may limit direct customer engagement. The company appears to be medium-sized with a solid market position in the niche of affordable email marketing solutions.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of HTTPS, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No modern TLS protocols or strong cipher suites are enabled, and critical security headers such as HSTS are missing. While cookies are set with Secure and HttpOnly flags, the overall transport security is insufficient. No published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found, indicating limited transparency and preparedness for security incidents. The absence of cookie consent mechanisms also raises privacy compliance concerns. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues and implementation of security best practices are recommended to protect user data and enhance trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and configure strong cipher suites.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Publish clear security policies and incident response contacts, including abuse and security email addresses.
  6. Introduce a cookie policy and consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  7. Enhance transparency by providing direct contact emails and phone numbers for customer and security inquiries.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on AWS infrastructure with Apache server software. It uses a modern front-end stack including Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. Marketing and analytics integrations include Google Tag Manager, ProfitWell for subscription analytics, Stripe.js for payments, and Chatbase for chatbot functionality. The site is mobile-optimized with smooth scrolling and accessible navigation. However, performance metrics are missing or zero, indicating potential monitoring gaps. The absence of a valid SSL certificate is a critical technical flaw. The site uses canonical URLs and Open Graph metadata for SEO and social sharing. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but requires urgent security upgrades and performance monitoring enhancements.
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. 69/100Medium31 findingsView report
  2. 69/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with sendfox.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 sendfox.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.