Skip to main content

Security report for sysdig.com

Sysdig · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Sysdig is a leading enterprise cloud security company specializing in runtime insights and cloud-native application protection. Their platform offers comprehensive solutions including vulnerability management, cloud detection and response, and permissions management, targeting organizations operating in multi-cloud and containerized environments. The company is recognized as a leader in the CNAPP market with multiple industry awards and a strong customer base. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frameworks like Bootstrap and integrates various marketing and analytics tools. However, the SSL configuration is currently invalid or missing, which is a critical security concern. The site lacks some advanced security headers and DNS security features such as DNSSEC and DMARC. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are present and comprehensive, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, Sysdig demonstrates strong business credibility and technical maturity but should urgently address SSL and DNS security to improve its security posture and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching sysdig.com

This scan found 14 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. 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
0
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
55

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

Sysdig operates in the technology sector, focusing on cloud security for enterprises. Their business model is B2B SaaS, offering a unified security platform for cloud workloads, containers, and Kubernetes. The company has a global presence with localized sites and supports multiple languages. Their market position is strong, supported by Gartner recognition and customer testimonials. Sysdig leverages open source projects like Falco to enhance its platform. The company targets security teams and DevOps professionals seeking real-time threat detection and risk prioritization. Partnerships and integrations with major cloud providers and security tools expand their ecosystem. The website content and branding are consistent and professional, reinforcing their market leadership.

Security posture

The current security posture shows significant gaps. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical issue that undermines secure communications. The lack of DMARC and DNSSEC reduces email and DNS security. Security headers are not detected, and HSTS is disabled, increasing exposure to man-in-the-middle attacks. No explicit security policy or incident response information is available on the site. Despite these issues, no known vulnerabilities or malware were detected in the scanned content. The company should prioritize fixing SSL/TLS configuration, implementing security headers, and enhancing DNS and email security to meet industry best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across all site endpoints.
  2. Configure and enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce HTTPS.
  3. Add and correctly configure DMARC, SPF, and DKIM DNS records to protect against email spoofing.
  4. Enable DNSSEC to improve DNS integrity and prevent DNS spoofing attacks.
  5. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  6. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  7. Review and correct CAA DNS records to ensure proper certificate authority authorization.
  8. Maintain and regularly update privacy and cookie policies to comply with evolving regulations.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using Bootstrap 4 for responsive design and jQuery for interactivity. It integrates several third-party libraries including Slick Carousel, Popper.js, and Ekko Lightbox. The hosting infrastructure appears to be on AWS, indicated by the DNS nameservers. Performance is slow with a load time of over 21 seconds and a large number of resources (258). The site is mobile optimized and accessible with good SEO practices including meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). However, the SSL configuration is invalid or missing, which is a major technical risk. DNS records show multiple MX entries pointing to Google mail servers, but lack DMARC and have malformed CAA records. The site uses various marketing and analytics tools with consent mechanisms in place. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security improvements.
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 sysdig.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 sysdig.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.