Skip to main content

Security report for sticky.studio

Sticky Studio · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Sticky Studio is a small SaaS company offering a collaborative brainstorming and planning tool designed to help teams and individuals untangle complexity through a shared canvas. The product emphasizes simplicity and real-time collaboration features such as sticky notes, voting, comments, and voice huddles. The business operates a freemium model with a free tier and a $5/month subscription offering enhanced features. The website is professionally designed with consistent branding and clear calls to action, targeting teams seeking lightweight collaboration solutions. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript modules, Google Fonts, Stripe for payments, and Fathom Analytics for privacy-focused tracking. The site is mobile-optimized and performs moderately well, though accessibility and SEO could be improved. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS implied but lacks visible security headers and published security policies. WHOIS data is limited due to privacy protections and TLD restrictions, but no suspicious indicators are present. Overall, the site is trustworthy and functional with room for security and privacy enhancements.

Scanned

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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

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

  2. 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';…

  3. 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 sticky.studio

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. 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
77
Security headers
60
Email security
40
DNS health
75
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention sticky.studio, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for sticky.studio right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Sticky Studio occupies a niche in the collaborative SaaS market, focusing on simplicity and targeted brainstorming features. Its competitive advantage lies in ease of use and a clear freemium pricing model. The company is linked to Kumu, which may provide additional resources or credibility. Revenue streams include subscription fees and possibly enterprise upgrades. The target customers are small teams and individuals needing straightforward collaboration tools. The partnership with Kumu suggests a strategic ecosystem approach. Growth potential exists if the company expands features or integrates with other platforms. The lack of extensive contact info or certifications suggests a small, focused operation rather than a large enterprise.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is used, and no sensitive data is exposed in the HTML. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No published security policy or incident response information is available, limiting transparency. There is no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file, which could hinder coordinated vulnerability reporting. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. The use of Fathom Analytics indicates some privacy awareness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small SaaS but should be improved to meet higher compliance and trust standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response plan on the website to build trust and prepare for security events.
  4. Create a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO optimization to improve user experience and search engine visibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sticky Studio
Description
Collaborative brainstorming tool; a collaborative canvas for untangling complexity. Offers sticky notes, drawing connections, voting, and simple collaboration.
Key services
Collaborative boards, Real-time collaboration, Voting, Comments, Permissions, Exports, Templates, Huddles (voice chat)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Stripe, Fathom Analytics, Google Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS implied by script sources
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Fathom Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Fathom Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is limited due to TLD and privacy protections.
  3. The site offers a clear SaaS product with freemium and paid tiers.
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses found on the site.
  5. Contact is via a support email in the footer.
  6. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy detected.
  7. Security headers and policies are not visibly published.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  9. Use of modern web fonts and analytics indicates moderate technical maturity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses modern web technologies including JavaScript modules, Google Fonts, Stripe for payment processing, and Fathom Analytics for privacy-conscious tracking. The absence of a CMS suggests a custom or static site approach. Performance is moderate with deferred script loading and preconnect hints. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility is basic and could be improved. The technical stack is appropriate for a small SaaS product but lacks advanced frameworks or platforms that might support scalability or enterprise features. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the HTML. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and compliance tooling.
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 sticky.studio. 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 sticky.studio.

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.