Skip to main content

Security report for uservoice.com

UserVoice Inc. · Technology · United States

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

UserVoice Inc. is an established enterprise SaaS company founded in 2008, specializing in customer feedback management and product discovery software. The company offers a comprehensive platform that centralizes user feedback, leverages AI for categorization and sentiment analysis, and integrates with CRM and analytics tools to help product teams prioritize features and maintain customer trust. Their market position is strong, serving leading product teams worldwide with a focus on enterprise-grade solutions. Technically, the website is built on Webflow CMS and integrates multiple modern analytics and marketing technologies, demonstrating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is robust with HTTPS, security headers, and secure data collection practices, although explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are not publicly detailed. Overall, the website is professional, well-branded, and trustworthy, but the absence of WHOIS data for the domain introduces some uncertainty about domain registration legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include verifying domain registration, publishing vulnerability disclosure and incident response information, and enhancing accessibility features to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

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

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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. 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

  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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching uservoice.com

This scan found 12 issues across 4 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
72
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
82
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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.

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 operations teams, product managers, and customer success leaders who require enterprise-grade tools for systematic customer feedback management. Their SaaS business model focuses on subscription-based revenue streams, supported by integrations with popular CRM and analytics platforms. The company demonstrates strong branding consistency and trust signals, including customer logos and structured data with contact points. The marketing ecosystem includes Google Ads, LinkedIn Insight, and Heap Analytics, indicating active customer acquisition and engagement strategies. While the company appears well-positioned in the market, the missing WHOIS data is a notable anomaly that should be addressed to maintain full business credibility.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and secure form handling. The use of multiple analytics and marketing scripts is balanced with privacy compliance measures, including cookie consent mechanisms and a detailed privacy policy. However, the lack of a public vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact details represents a gap in transparency and readiness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The security score is strong but could be improved by adopting recognized security frameworks and publishing incident response procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Verify and publish domain WHOIS registration details to enhance trustworthiness.
  2. Establish and publicize a formal vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information.
  3. Improve website accessibility features to meet higher standards and broaden user inclusivity.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking technologies to minimize security risks.
  5. Consider obtaining recognized security certifications such as ISO 27001 or NIST to reinforce security posture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
UserVoice Inc.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
UserVoice Inc.
Description
UserVoice helps companies collect, analyze, and act on customer feedback to build better products and maintain customer trust.
Key services
UserVoice Discovery, Customer feedback collection, AI-powered feedback categorization, Customer segmentation, Revenue impact analysis, Integration with CRM and analytics, Custom workflows and automation, Real-time dashboards and reporting
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Heap Analytics, Zoho PageSense, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Google Tag Manager, ZoomInfo Pixel, Webflow CMS, Typekit Fonts, ChiliPiper Chat
Platforms
Webflow
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with consent mechanisms

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Heap Analytics, Zoho PageSense, LinkedIn Insight
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
ZoomInfo Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Heap Analytics, Zoho PageSense, G2 Crowd Tracking
Marketing tools
Heap Analytics, Zoho PageSense
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 professional design
  2. Strong use of structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and business info
  3. Multiple analytics and marketing tools integrated
  4. No signs of adult or questionable content
  5. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual for an established company domain
  6. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers
  7. Contact information is clearly provided with company domain emails
  8. Privacy and cookie policies are present and comprehensive
  9. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure info found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Webflow CMS and employs a modern technology stack including Google Analytics, Heap Analytics, Zoho PageSense, and LinkedIn Insight for analytics and marketing. It uses Typekit for fonts and integrates a chat widget via ChiliPiper. The site is mobile optimized with good performance and SEO practices, including structured data in JSON-LD format. Security headers and HTTPS are properly configured. The technical implementation is solid, though hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Performance is moderate, with potential for optimization in loading speed and accessibility 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. 77/100 +1Low25 findingsView report
  2. 76/100 +1Low26 findingsView report
  3. 75/100Medium25 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.