Skip to main content

Security report for supabase.com

Supabase Inc · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Supabase Inc is a leading technology company providing a comprehensive Postgres development platform that includes database, authentication, realtime subscriptions, edge functions, storage, and vector embeddings. Positioned as a developer-centric PaaS, Supabase targets developers and enterprises seeking scalable and integrated backend solutions. The company demonstrates strong market presence with a large user base, active community, and reputable customer endorsements. Technically, the website leverages modern frameworks such as Next.js and React, hosted on Vercel, ensuring fast performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is robust with SOC2 Type 2 certification, HIPAA compliance, HSTS enforcement, and no detected SSL vulnerabilities, although TLS protocols could be modernized. The site lacks explicit cookie consent mechanisms and incident response contacts, which are areas for improvement. Overall, Supabase presents a professional, trustworthy, and technically mature platform with strong security and compliance focus.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of supabase.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

3 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 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 supabase.com

This scan found 15 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. 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
95
Security headers
45
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
78

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

Supabase operates in the technology sector as an essential entity offering backend platform services primarily for developers and enterprises. Its business model revolves around providing integrated Postgres-based backend services with a focus on ease of use, scalability, and extensibility. The company has established competitive advantages through open source engagement, comprehensive product offerings, and certifications like SOC2 and HIPAA. Its ecosystem includes partnerships with Google for email services and uses HubSpot for marketing. Customer stories and social proof indicate strong growth and adoption. The platform supports multiple development frameworks and languages, enhancing its market reach. Supabase's strategic focus on security and compliance positions it well for regulated industries and enterprise customers.

Security posture

Supabase exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, HSTS with preload, and inclusion of subdomains, mitigating common web vulnerabilities. The SSL certificate is valid, not self-signed, and uses a 2048-bit key, though TLS protocols are not enabled, which is unusual and may warrant review. No weak or vulnerable cipher suites are detected, and known SSL vulnerabilities like Heartbleed and POODLE are absent. The presence of a security.txt file and published security and compliance pages indicate a proactive approach to vulnerability disclosure and security governance. Certifications such as SOC2 Type 2 and HIPAA compliance further demonstrate commitment to security standards. However, the absence of explicit incident response contact information and cookie consent mechanisms suggests areas for enhancement in compliance and incident management.

Recommendations

  1. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) to enhance SSL security and compatibility.
  2. Implement a visible cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  3. Publish clear incident response contact details including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Provide data protection officer contact information if applicable to strengthen GDPR compliance.
  5. Regularly update and maintain the security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policies to encourage responsible reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including React and Next.js frameworks, hosted on Vercel, ensuring fast load times and good performance. The tech stack includes SVG graphics, JavaScript, and integration with HubSpot for marketing. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured Open Graph data. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or static site generation approach. The DNS setup uses Cloudflare nameservers, enhancing DNS security and performance. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern, scalable, and well-architected, though the lack of enabled TLS protocols is a notable technical anomaly that should be addressed to avoid potential compatibility or security issues.
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. 77/100 +1Low27 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with supabase.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 supabase.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.