Security report for wa.me
WhatsApp LLC · Technology · United States
Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.
WhatsApp LLC operates a globally recognized messaging platform used by over 2 billion users worldwide. The company provides secure, end-to-end encrypted messaging and calling services accessible via mobile apps, desktop clients, and web interfaces. As a subsidiary of Meta Platforms, WhatsApp maintains a strong market position as a leading communication tool for personal and business use. The website content reflects a professional and user-friendly design, emphasizing privacy and security as core values. The technical infrastructure of the website leverages modern web technologies including JavaScript frameworks and optimized CSS, ensuring fast performance and excellent mobile responsiveness. The site is hosted securely with HTTPS and employs robust security headers, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. However, the absence of a visible cookie consent mechanism suggests room for improvement in privacy compliance presentation. From a security perspective, WhatsApp demonstrates strong adherence to best practices, including enforced HTTPS, content security policies, and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The lack of explicit incident response contacts or a security.txt file is a minor gap in transparency. Overall, the domain and website exhibit high legitimacy and trustworthiness, consistent with a major technology enterprise. Strategically, WhatsApp should enhance its privacy compliance visibility by implementing cookie consent banners and publishing clear security incident response information. These steps will further solidify user trust and regulatory adherence. The website's current state supports a high level of user confidence and operational security.
Scanned
NIS2 and GDPR posture
- GDPR outside view
- 73/ 100 · Medium
- Checks completed
- 7of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
- (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
- (b) Incident handling: One indicator
- (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
- (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
- (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
- (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
- (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
- (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
- (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
- (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.
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 X-Frame-Options header
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
- CWE-1021
- OWASP A06:2025
- CAPEC-103
- ASVS V3.4.6
- OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
- RFC 7034
- High
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
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.
- High
Weak DKIM Key
DKIM selector 'google' uses 648-bit key
What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA keys for DKIM
- High
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
SSL Certificate Expires Soon
SSL certificate expires in 7 days
What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
- NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates
- 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
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
- NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection
- High
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
Keep watching wa.me
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. 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
- 65
- Security headers
- 75
- Email security
- 75
- DNS health
- 90
- Network security
- 100
- GDPR outside view
- 73
- Average
- 80
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
Security posture
Recommendations
- Implement a visible cookie consent banner to enhance GDPR compliance and user transparency.
- Publish explicit incident response and security contact information to improve vulnerability management and trust.
- Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
- Enhance contact information availability on the website to support user and business inquiries.
- Continue regular security audits and updates to maintain strong security posture and address emerging threats.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Business
- Company
- WhatsApp LLC
- Description
- WhatsApp Messenger is a global messaging and calling application used by over 2 billion people in more than 180 countries. It offers free, simple, secure, and reliable messaging and calling services available on phones worldwide.
- Key services
- End-to-end encrypted messaging, Voice and video calls, Group messaging, Status sharing, Business communication tools
- Content quality
- excellent
- Branding
- consistent
Technology
- Stack
- JavaScript, CSS, HTML5, RequireJS, Bootloader, Facebook Haste, Trusted Types (disabled), Manifest JSON
- Platforms
- Web, Mobile (Android, iOS), Desktop (Windows sideload)
- Performance
- fast
- Mobile
- excellent
- Accessibility
- good
- SEO
- good
Security
- Observed score
- 90/100
- Good practices seen
- HTTPS enforced
- Content Security Policy implemented
- No exposed sensitive data in HTML
- No vulnerable libraries detected
- Secure forms with no visible input fields on main page
Analytics and tracking
- Services
- Facebook Analytics
- Tracking level
- moderate
- Privacy practices
- good
Advertising
- Tracking pixels
- Facebook Pixel
- Marketing tools
- Facebook Analytics
- Transparency
- good
Site quality
- Design
- excellent
- User experience
- excellent
- Content relevance
- excellent
- Navigation
- excellent
- Professionalism
- excellent
- Trustworthiness
- high
Key observations
- Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
- Content is professional, well-structured, and consistent with WhatsApp branding.
- No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on this subdomain page.
- Privacy and terms pages are linked and appear comprehensive.
- No forms or data collection fields present on the main page.
- Social media links to official WhatsApp accounts on Twitter (X), YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are present.
- No suspicious or malicious domains detected.
- No explicit security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page found.
- No cookie consent banner detected despite GDPR relevance.
- Strong HTTPS and security headers observed.
Technical notes
Notes
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.
- MITRE CWE (opens in a new tab)4.20 (2026-04-30) · CWE Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- MITRE CAPEC (opens in a new tab)3.9 (2023-01-24) · CAPEC Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
- Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
- NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
- NIST NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens in a new tab)live records · Public domain (NVD); CVE® records © MITRE, free use
- W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
- ETSI EN 301 549 (opens in a new tab)V3.2.1 (2021-03), clause headings · Clause numbers and titles only (© ETSI)
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Earlier scans of this domain
- 74/100 −4Medium27 findingsView report
- 78/100Low24 findingsView report
- 78/100Low22 findingsView report
Feedback on this report
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with wa.me. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review wa.me.