Skip to main content

Security report for uxsniff.com

UXsniff · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

UXsniff is a small technology company founded in 2017 that provides AI-powered user experience and SEO analytics tools. Their platform offers session recordings, heatmaps, feedback widgets, surveys, site audits, broken link checking, and innovative Time-Travel A/B testing without the need for split traffic or code changes. The company targets website owners, UX professionals, and digital marketers aiming to optimize website performance and conversions. The website is professionally designed, mobile-optimized, and integrates modern web technologies such as SVG animations, Google Fonts, and YouTube APIs. Hosting and DNS are managed via GoDaddy and Cloudflare respectively, ensuring reliable infrastructure. Security posture is good with HTTPS enabled and domain status protections, but could be improved by enabling DNSSEC and adding security headers. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies and lack of consent mechanisms. Contact information is limited to a contact form and no explicit emails or phone numbers are provided. The site is mentioned in reputable media outlets, enhancing trust. Overall, the website is functional, professional, and trustworthy but should improve privacy and security disclosures to enhance compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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

  3. 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 uxsniff.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
75
Security headers
70
Email security
40
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
74

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

UXsniff occupies a niche in the AI-driven UX analytics market, differentiating itself with unique features like Time-Travel A/B testing that leverages historical data without requiring traffic splitting. The SaaS subscription model with a free base plan supports customer acquisition and retention. The company appears to have a focused product offering aimed at digital professionals and businesses seeking data-driven UX improvements. Media mentions in Ahrefs, Moz, Yahoo Finance, and other outlets indicate growing market recognition. The lack of explicit company registration or VAT information on the website suggests a small or early-stage company. The partnership ecosystem includes integrations with common web technologies but no explicit business partners or subsidiaries are identified. Growth potential exists through enhanced privacy compliance and expanded marketing efforts.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and uses domain status locks to prevent unauthorized domain changes, indicating a baseline security maturity. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended best practice to protect against DNS spoofing. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected in the provided data, representing a potential area for improvement. There is no published security policy or incident response contact information, which limits transparency and preparedness for security incidents. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the analysis. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file suggests limited formal security governance. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be strengthened by adopting additional security controls and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing attacks.
  2. Implement and publish security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Add a security policy and incident response contact information to increase transparency and readiness.
  5. Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure program and publishing a security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
UXsniff
Description
UXsniff is an AI-powered tool that autonomously analyzes session recordings and identifies UX and SEO issues. It provides website heatmaps, session recordings, feedback widgets, on-site surveys, site audits, broken link checkers, and Time-Travel A/B testing without split traffic or code changes.
Key services
Session recordings, Website heatmaps, Time-Travel A/B testing, Feedback widget, On-site surveys, Site audit, Broken link checker
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, SVG animations, Cloudflare DNS, Google Fonts, YouTube iframe API, Typekit fonts
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
UXsniff proprietary tracking script
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
uxsniff tracking script
Marketing tools
YouTube iframe API, Google Fonts, Typekit
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website offers AI-powered UX and SEO analytics tools.
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on main page.
  3. Contact available via contact page and login/signup forms.
  4. Uses modern web technologies and fonts.
  5. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure.
  6. No phone numbers or emails explicitly listed on main page.
  7. Mentions in reputable media outlets increase trust.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, leveraging modern web technologies including JavaScript, SVG animations, Google Fonts, and YouTube iframe API for rich media content. Hosting is managed via GoDaddy and DNS via Cloudflare, providing reliable infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of fonts and scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical stack is modern and appropriate for the business size, with opportunities to improve security headers and privacy compliance. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected.
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 uxsniff.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 uxsniff.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.