Skip to main content

Security report for workflow.design

Workflow · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Workflow.design is a specialized SaaS platform focused on simplifying design feedback and collaboration for designers, creative teams, and their clients. The platform supports multiple asset types including websites, Figma designs, images, videos, and PDFs, enabling streamlined project workflows and approvals. Positioned as a niche tool with a growing user base and recent funding announcements, Workflow emphasizes ease of use and client engagement without requiring sign-ups for feedback. Technically, the website is built on Webflow, hosted via Cloudflare, and integrates modern analytics and tracking tools such as PostHog and Google Tag Manager. While the site demonstrates excellent design quality, accessibility, and user experience, performance is moderate with room for optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and no known vulnerabilities, but improvements are recommended such as enabling HSTS, DNSSEC, and stricter DMARC policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with privacy policies present but lacking cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, Workflow.design presents a credible and professional online presence with a solid foundation for growth and security enhancements.

Scanned

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, LinkedIn

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

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

Keep watching workflow.design

This scan found 21 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
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
71

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

Workflow targets the creative and design industry, offering a SaaS subscription model with free trials to attract designers and teams seeking efficient feedback tools. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its multi-format support and no-signup feedback feature, reducing friction for client participation. The presence of testimonials and logos from reputable companies enhances trust and market positioning. The company appears small-sized with a focused product offering and active marketing through video demos and interactive tours. Partnerships or integrations with platforms like Figma and feature request portals indicate an ecosystem approach. The business model likely generates revenue via subscriptions, with potential upsells for advanced features. Growth indicators include recent $3 million funding and active user engagement features. Strategic observations suggest focusing on expanding integrations and enhancing privacy compliance to meet evolving regulations.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with modern TLS protocols (1.3 and 1.2) and shows no signs of critical vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or Logjam. DNS records are properly configured with SPF and multiple Google MX servers, but lack DNSSEC and CAA records, which are recommended for enhanced security. The absence of HSTS and OCSP stapling reduces protection against certain attacks and certificate revocation delays. DMARC is configured but with a 'none' policy, limiting email spoofing protection. No explicit security policies, incident response contacts, or certifications are published on the site. The site uses third-party analytics and marketing tools, which may introduce privacy considerations. Overall, the security posture is moderate, with good baseline protections but room for improvement in email security and HTTP header hardening.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement DNSSEC and CAA DNS records to secure DNS integrity and certificate issuance.
  3. Adopt a stricter DMARC policy (e.g., quarantine or reject) to improve email authentication and reduce phishing risks.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Webflow CMS, leveraging modern front-end technologies including GSAP for animations and PostHog for analytics. Hosting is via Cloudflare, providing DNS and CDN services. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 7.3 seconds and a large page size (~650 KB). The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features such as keyboard navigation and ARIA roles. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. The use of multiple external scripts and video assets contributes to load time. Technical debt appears low, but performance optimization could improve user experience. The absence of some security headers and DNS security features represents a technical risk that should be addressed to maintain operational integrity.
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 workflow.design. 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 workflow.design.

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.