Skip to main content

Security report for studio.design

Studio.Design · Technology · United States

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

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Studio.Design is a technology company providing a no-code platform for building portfolio websites, landing pages, and other creative web content. Positioned as an easy and quick solution for creatives, it offers a range of services including a design editor, CMS, hosting, forms, SEO tools, and integrations with Figma and Lottie animations. The platform targets creative professionals and individuals seeking flexible website creation without coding. Technically, the website is built on Nuxt.js with server-side rendering, hosted on Google Cloud infrastructure, and integrates Firebase for backend and analytics. The site demonstrates excellent design quality, mobile optimization, and SEO practices. Security-wise, the site uses a valid SSL certificate but lacks modern TLS protocol support and advanced security headers like HSTS and DNSSEC. There is no visible cookie consent mechanism, and privacy policies are present and comprehensive. Incident response contact is available via an abuse email. Overall, the platform shows a mature digital presence with room for security enhancements and privacy compliance improvements.

Scanned

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 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"

  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 studio.design

This scan found 18 issues across 5 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
60
Security headers
30
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
67

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

Studio.Design operates in the competitive no-code website builder market, focusing on creative users who require design freedom without coding constraints. Its business model is SaaS-based, offering subscription plans with features like custom domains and advanced tools. The company leverages partnerships with domains like studio.inc and studio.site, indicating a broader ecosystem. Revenue streams likely include subscription fees and premium feature upgrades. The platform's integration with popular tools like Figma and Lottie enhances its competitive advantage. Growth indicators include frequent updates and a comprehensive feature set. The company maintains strong SEO and branding consistency, supporting market positioning as a user-friendly creative platform.

Security posture

The security posture of Studio.Design is moderate. The presence of a valid SSL certificate and absence of known SSL vulnerabilities are positive indicators. However, the lack of modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3 disabled) and missing security headers such as HSTS and DNSSEC reduce the overall security robustness. The site does not implement a cookie consent mechanism, which may impact GDPR compliance. Incident response is facilitated through an abuse contact email, but no formal security policy or vulnerability disclosure program is evident. Data protection officer contact information is not found. The platform should prioritize implementing advanced security headers, enabling modern TLS protocols, and establishing clear privacy and security policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and protect against downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement DNSSEC and CAA records to secure DNS infrastructure and restrict certificate issuance.
  3. Deploy a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  4. Publish a security.txt file and establish a formal vulnerability disclosure program to improve security communication.
  5. Upgrade SSL/TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols for stronger encryption and performance.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Nuxt.js framework with server-side rendering, leveraging Google Cloud infrastructure and Firebase services for backend and analytics. The tech stack includes Google Fonts, Font Awesome, and Material Icons for UI consistency. Performance is fast with excellent mobile optimization and good accessibility. SEO is well-implemented with multiple Google site verifications and Open Graph metadata. However, the SSL configuration lacks support for modern TLS versions, and security headers are minimal. The absence of DNSSEC and CAA records indicates potential DNS security risks. The site uses Google Tag Manager and Firebase Analytics for tracking, with moderate user tracking levels. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust but would benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance mechanisms.
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 studio.design. 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 studio.design.

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.