Skip to main content

Security report for slaask.com

Slaask, Inc. · Technology · France

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Slaask, Inc. operates a specialized SaaS platform that integrates customer service communication directly into Slack, targeting businesses that rely on Slack for team collaboration. The company offers a unified messaging solution that consolidates customer interactions from various channels into Slack, enhancing customer engagement and support efficiency. Their market position is niche but strong, focusing exclusively on Slack users with additional chatbot capabilities and multiple third-party integrations. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common web technologies and integrates popular analytics and marketing tools. However, performance is suboptimal with slow load times and a large page size. Security posture is adequate with valid SSL and SPF/DMARC records, but lacks advanced HTTP security headers and HSTS enforcement. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the website and business appear legitimate and professional, with room for improvement in security hardening, privacy compliance, and performance optimization.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of slaask.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

7 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"

    • 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 slaask.com

This scan found 23 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
67
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
64

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

Slaask targets SMBs and larger enterprises that use Slack for customer communication, positioning itself as a hyperspecialized Slack-based customer messaging platform. Their business model is subscription-based SaaS, offering integrations with CRM and helpdesk tools to enhance customer support workflows. The company demonstrates strong branding consistency and trust signals through testimonials, social media presence, and press mentions. Their ecosystem includes partnerships with Slack and various integration platforms. Growth indicators include a global user base across 86 countries and active social engagement. The company is small-sized, founded in 2016, and headquartered in France. No parent or subsidiary companies were identified. The website content is professionally presented and relevant to their target audience.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate but lacks HSTS and other security headers that could mitigate common web attacks. DNS records include SPF and DMARC, though DMARC is set to 'none', offering no enforcement against spoofing. No vulnerabilities or subdomain takeover risks were detected. The absence of a published security policy or incident response plan reduces transparency and preparedness perception. Data protection practices are not explicitly detailed, and no security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page is present. The use of multiple third-party tracking and marketing tools increases the attack surface and privacy risks. Overall, the security posture is functional but could benefit from enhanced policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Update DMARC policy to 'quarantine' or 'reject' to improve email spoofing protection.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  4. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Optimize website performance by reducing page size and load time to improve user experience and SEO.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 4.7.29 with jQuery and uses common web technologies including Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and various marketing scripts. Hosting is managed via Cloudflare DNS and nameservers, providing some CDN and security benefits. The site has a large number of resources (286) and a large page size (~1.9 MB), resulting in slow load times (~15.8 seconds). Mobile optimization is good, and SEO is supported by meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Accessibility is basic but present. There is technical debt in outdated WordPress version and missing modern security headers. The site uses multiple external domains for assets and tracking, which should be monitored for security and privacy 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 67/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with slaask.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 slaask.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.