Skip to main content

Security report for springcm.com

Docusign · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and GDPR outside view.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website analyzed is the secure login portal for DocuSign's SpringCM Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) product. DocuSign is a leading enterprise technology company specializing in digital agreement management and electronic signatures. The login page is designed for business users and enterprise customers, providing secure access to contract management services. The site integrates modern frontend technologies such as AngularJS and uses CDN hosting for performance optimization. Security features include HTTPS enforcement, CSRF tokens, and support for two-factor authentication, indicating a strong security posture. However, some security headers are not explicitly detected, and no cookie consent mechanism is present on the login page. Privacy and terms of service links are prominently provided, pointing to DocuSign's main corporate site, reflecting good privacy compliance. Overall, the site is professional, secure, and trustworthy, with minor areas for improvement in privacy and security header implementation.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 springcm.com

This scan found 12 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
0
Security headers
85
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

DocuSign operates in the technology sector with a focus on SaaS solutions for digital contract management. The company holds a strong market position as a leader in digital agreements and workflow automation. The login portal targets enterprise customers requiring secure access to contract lifecycle management tools. The business model is subscription-based SaaS, generating revenue through enterprise licensing. The site branding is consistent with DocuSign's corporate identity, reinforcing trust and professionalism. The absence of direct contact information on the login page is typical for enterprise portals, with customer support likely handled through other channels. The integration of two-factor authentication and secure login practices aligns with industry standards for enterprise security.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced, CSRF protection, and two-factor authentication support. The absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a minor gap that could be addressed to enhance protection against clickjacking and cross-site scripting. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The lack of a published vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file limits transparency for security researchers. Privacy compliance is strong with clear links to comprehensive privacy policies and terms of use. Incident response and security policy information are not directly available on the login page, which is common for such portals but could be improved for transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance browser security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with global privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  4. Provide accessible security policy and incident response contact information to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards and improve user experience for all users.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Docusign
Description
Docusign provides contract lifecycle management (CLM) solutions, enabling businesses to manage agreements digitally and securely.
Key services
Contract Lifecycle Management, Digital Signatures, Workflow Automation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
AngularJS, SpringCM UX Framework, Google Authenticator integration, HTTPS, SVG icons
Frameworks
AngularJS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF tokens in forms
  • Two-factor authentication support
  • Secure password inputs

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a secure login portal for DocuSign CLM product.
  2. No WHOIS data for subdomain as expected; domain is part of DocuSign's infrastructure.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on login page.
  4. Privacy and terms links point to DocuSign main site, indicating corporate governance.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected on login page.
  6. Two-factor authentication is supported and integrated.
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected on login page.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. No explicit security headers detected in provided data.
  10. Site uses modern frontend technologies and CDN hosting.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses AngularJS framework and a custom SpringCM UX framework for frontend rendering. Assets and stylesheets are served via Akamai CDN, indicating a robust hosting and delivery infrastructure. The login form includes CSRF tokens and secure input fields, supporting secure authentication workflows. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility features are basic but functional. No CMS is detected, suggesting a custom-built enterprise application. The technical stack is modern enough for enterprise use but could benefit from updates to newer frontend frameworks for long-term maintainability.
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. 81/100 +1Low24 findingsView report
  2. 80/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with springcm.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 springcm.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.