Skip to main content

Security report for vipre.com

VIPRE Security Group · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

VIPRE Security Group is an established cybersecurity company founded in 1999, specializing in comprehensive antivirus, endpoint protection, email security, and cybersecurity training for both business and home users. The company positions itself as a trusted provider in the cybersecurity market with a strong focus on protecting businesses and employees. Their website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and extensive marketing and analytics integrations, indicating a high level of digital maturity. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS enhanced with modern marketing and analytics tools such as Pardot, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and Visual Website Optimizer, supporting effective user engagement and conversion optimization. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain registration protections in place, though improvements such as enabling DNSSEC and publishing explicit security policies and incident response contacts are recommended. Overall, VIPRE demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and compliance with privacy regulations, making it a credible and reliable cybersecurity service provider.

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

5 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 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
    • 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 vipre.com

This scan found 20 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
72

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

VIPRE operates in the technology sector, specifically cybersecurity, targeting businesses and home users. Their business model revolves around providing software and training services to secure endpoints and email communications. The company benefits from a long domain history and certifications such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001, which enhance its market credibility. The presence of multiple marketing and analytics tools suggests a focus on customer acquisition and retention through data-driven strategies. Social media presence on LinkedIn and Twitter supports brand engagement and professional networking. The lack of privacy protection on WHOIS data aligns with transparency expected from an established business. No suspicious domains or partners were identified, indicating a focused and controlled ecosystem.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses domain status locks to prevent unauthorized changes, reflecting good security hygiene. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended best practice to protect against DNS spoofing. The absence of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program represents a gap in transparency and readiness. Security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options were not explicitly detected, which could be improved to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. The use of reputable third-party services for analytics and marketing is balanced with privacy compliance mechanisms like Cookiebot consent management. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced with additional published policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and integrity.
  2. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Add or verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen web security.
  5. Continue maintaining strong privacy compliance and transparent user consent mechanisms.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
VIPRE Security Group
Description
Keep your business and employees safe with all-in-one business antivirus, endpoint protection, email security, and cybersecurity training.
Key services
business antivirus, endpoint protection, email security, cybersecurity training
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), Pardot marketing automation, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Trustpilot widget, Hotjar
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited
  • No DNSSEC enabled (recommend enabling)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Visual Website Optimizer (VWO), Trustpilot
Marketing tools
Pardot, Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Strong presence of marketing and analytics tools indicating mature digital marketing.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
  4. Good compliance with privacy and cookie policies including consent mechanisms.
  5. Lack of explicit security policy and incident response information is a minor gap.
  6. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a recommended security enhancement.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery and various marketing and analytics integrations such as Pardot, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and Visual Website Optimizer. The site uses Yoast SEO for search engine optimization and demonstrates good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by multiple third-party scripts. The domain is registered with CSC Corporate Domains, Inc., a reputable registrar, and has been active since 1999, indicating a stable technical foundation. No critical technical vulnerabilities were detected in the HTML content. Opportunities exist to improve DNS security with DNSSEC and enhance security headers for better protection against web attacks.
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. 69/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with vipre.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 vipre.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.