Skip to main content

Security report for zerofox.com

ZeroFox · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in GDPR outside view.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

ZeroFox is a leading external cybersecurity company specializing in protecting enterprises from threats beyond the traditional network perimeter. Their unified platform offers comprehensive digital risk protection, including brand, domain, social media, and executive protection, supported by threat intelligence and disruption capabilities. The company positions itself as an industry leader with a strong focus on external attack surface management and rapid response services. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks like Next.js and React, with good SEO, mobile optimization, and performance. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and consent management, though explicit security headers and incident response contacts could be improved. The absence of WHOIS data is a concern but may be due to privacy protection. Overall, ZeroFox presents a professional and trustworthy digital presence with extensive customer testimonials and industry recognition.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
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

1 finding 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

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

Keep watching zerofox.com

This scan found 17 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
95
Security headers
75
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
84

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

ZeroFox operates in the technology sector, targeting enterprise customers requiring external cybersecurity solutions. Their business model revolves around SaaS offerings combined with managed intelligence services. The company demonstrates strong market positioning as a leader in digital risk protection, supported by multiple industry awards and positive customer feedback. Their ecosystem includes partner and customer portals, indicating a mature operational structure. The website content and linked domains reinforce their credibility and extensive service portfolio. However, the lack of transparent WHOIS data suggests a need for further verification to ensure domain legitimacy.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and employs modern security best practices such as consent management for cookies. However, explicit security headers like HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options are not evident from the data provided. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The absence of a published security.txt file and incident response contact channels limits transparency in vulnerability disclosure and incident handling. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adding these missing elements to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure.
  2. Add explicit security headers (HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options) to strengthen HTTP security.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Verify and publish domain WHOIS information or clarify privacy protection usage to improve transparency.
  5. Continue enhancing privacy compliance by detailing data retention policies and cookie management.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ZeroFox
Description
ZeroFox is a leader in external cybersecurity, providing a unified platform that exposes, disrupts, and responds to threats outside the perimeter.
Key services
External Attack Surface Management, Domain Protection, Brand Protection, Social Media Protection, Executive Protection, Threat Intelligence, Disruption & Takedowns, Physical Security Intelligence
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, ConsentJS, Webmanifest, Woff2 fonts
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Content Security Policy (implied by modern framework usage)
  • Consent management for cookies

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
ConsentJS
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. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  3. WHOIS data unavailable, which is a concern for domain transparency.
  4. Strong presence on social media and industry platforms.
  5. Comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  6. No explicit security.txt or incident response contacts found.
  7. Multiple customer testimonials and industry awards displayed.
  8. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  9. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including React and Next.js, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. SEO is well implemented with comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. The site loads quickly and is accessible with good navigation clarity. Tracking and analytics are managed via Google Tag Manager and ConsentJS, supporting privacy compliance. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit but the site appears stable and performant.
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 zerofox.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 zerofox.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.