Skip to main content

Security report for uservoice.com

UserVoice · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

UserVoice is a mature, enterprise-focused SaaS company specializing in product feedback management and roadmap software. The company offers a comprehensive platform that enables product teams to collect, analyze, and act on user feedback to drive product discovery and customer engagement. The website reflects a strong market position with trusted enterprise clients and consistent branding. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including Webflow CMS, Google Analytics, Heap, HubSpot, and Zendesk for support, hosted on Cloudflare infrastructure. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS, DMARC enforcement, and no detected vulnerabilities, though improvements such as enabling HSTS and DNSSEC are recommended. Privacy compliance is addressed with clear policies and consent mechanisms, but incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are lacking. Overall, the website and domain data indicate a trustworthy and professional online presence with a good balance of business credibility and technical maturity.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of uservoice.com. View the latest report

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

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.

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching uservoice.com

This scan found 18 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
87
Security headers
60
Email security
95
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
75

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 uservoice.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,039
Employees
0
Customers
3,009
Third parties
30
Weak passwords
12%

435 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 uservoice.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

UserVoice operates in the technology sector, targeting product teams and enterprises seeking to improve product development through user feedback. Their SaaS business model focuses on subscription revenue from enterprise clients. The company demonstrates competitive advantages through comprehensive features, integrations, and a strong customer base including major brands. The website content and technical infrastructure support a user-centric approach with extensive analytics and marketing tools. Strategic partnerships and integrations enhance their ecosystem. Growth indicators include new product features and active content marketing. The company maintains a professional digital footprint aligned with its market positioning.

Security posture

UserVoice exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS using modern TLS protocols and a strict DMARC policy to prevent email spoofing. The absence of DNSSEC and HSTS are notable gaps that could be addressed to enhance DNS and transport security. No vulnerable SSL ciphers or known vulnerabilities were detected. The site uses third-party services for analytics and support, which introduces typical third-party risk but no immediate concerns. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are in place, supporting GDPR compliance. However, the lack of explicit incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure channels limits transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional best practices and disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to strengthen HTTPS enforcement.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  3. Enable OCSP stapling on the SSL certificate to improve certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  4. Publish explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure information, including a security.txt file and dedicated security contact emails.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels to minimize privacy risks and improve compliance transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS and uses a modern tech stack including Google Analytics, Heap, HubSpot, Zendesk, and LinkedIn Insight Tag for analytics and marketing. Hosting is provided via Cloudflare DNS and CDN services. The site has a large number of resources (938) and a relatively slow load time (~20 seconds), indicating potential optimization opportunities. Fonts are loaded via Typekit, and jQuery is used for scripting. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic and could be enhanced. Security configurations are adequate but lack some advanced features like HSTS and DNSSEC. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable web presence but would benefit from performance tuning and security enhancements.
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. 77/100Low25 findingsView report
  2. 75/100Medium20 findings · partial scanView report
  3. 76/100Low26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with uservoice.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 uservoice.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.