Skip to main content

Security report for suse.com

SUSE · Technology · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

SUSE is a well-established enterprise technology company specializing in open source software solutions, including Linux operating systems, cloud-native platforms, edge computing, and AI applications. The company targets enterprise IT professionals and businesses seeking robust, scalable infrastructure modernization. Their market position is strong, supported by a comprehensive product portfolio and consistent branding across digital channels. Technically, the website demonstrates modern infrastructure with responsive design, use of popular frameworks like Bootstrap, and integration of advanced analytics and consent management tools. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities, though public security policies and incident response contacts are not found. Overall, the site reflects a mature digital presence with good privacy compliance and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

2 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching suse.com

This scan found 15 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
65
Security headers
70
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
81

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 suse.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
12,498
Employees
27
Customers
12,190
Third parties
281
Weak passwords
11%

Latest record dated 2026-06-12 · 47 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for suse.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –susecollective.suse.com2026-06-12
  • –myaccount.suse.com2026-06-11
  • –myaccount.suse.com2026-06-05
  • –myaccount.suse.com2026-04-21
  • –myaccount.suse.com2025-11-12

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

SUSE operates in the technology sector with a focus on enterprise open source solutions. Their business model revolves around software licensing, support, and cloud services. The company leverages partnerships, such as with Rancher, to extend its cloud-native and edge computing offerings. The target customers are enterprises requiring reliable Linux and cloud infrastructure. The website content and structured data indicate a large enterprise with a US presence. The company maintains a strong ecosystem with social media engagement and customer support portals. Growth indicators include diversified product lines and industry-specific solutions. Strategic observations suggest continued investment in cloud and AI technologies to maintain competitive advantage.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is high, with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers implemented. No exposed sensitive information or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Privacy compliance is evident through comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms. However, the absence of a public security policy, vulnerability disclosure program, and incident response contact details indicates room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Compliance with GDPR is supported by cookie consent and privacy statements. The security culture appears professional but could benefit from enhanced public communication of security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance frameworks.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program and security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance trust signals by displaying relevant certifications and compliance badges on the website.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
SUSE
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SUSE
Description
Modernize your infrastructure with SUSE Linux Enterprise servers, cloud technology for IaaS, and SUSE's software-defined storage.
Key services
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, SUSE Rancher Prime, Cloud Native solutions, Edge computing platforms, AI Suite platform
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Application Insights, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Qualified.js
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure login and account management links

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Application Insights, Qualified
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Application Insights, Qualified
Marketing tools
Qualified
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. Strong enterprise branding and product portfolio
  3. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  4. No exposed sensitive data or security issues detected
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, common for large enterprises
  6. Use of multiple analytics and marketing tools with privacy compliance
  7. No evidence of adult or questionable content
  8. No public security policy or incident response contact found
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, Font Awesome for icons, and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Application Insights, and Qualified.js. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts and optimized assets. Mobile optimization and accessibility are excellent, ensuring a broad user reach. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML content. Technical risks are minimal, but continuous monitoring of third-party dependencies is recommended to avoid supply chain vulnerabilities.
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 suse.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 suse.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.