Security report for zoom.us

Zoom Communications, Inc. · Technology · United States

High risk. 17 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Zoom Communications, Inc. is a leading enterprise technology company specializing in unified communications and collaboration platforms. Founded in 2011 and headquartered in San Jose, California, Zoom offers a comprehensive suite of services including video meetings, team chat, VoIP phone, webinars, whiteboard collaboration, contact center solutions, and AI-powered productivity tools. The company targets businesses and organizations globally, positioning itself as a trusted platform to modernize workflows and enhance communication efficiency. The website demonstrates a mature technical infrastructure leveraging modern JavaScript frameworks, Coveo search integration, Optimizely for experimentation, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site is well-optimized for SEO, mobile responsive, and accessible, reflecting a high level of digital maturity. Structured data and multiple language support further enhance its global reach and user experience. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs best practices in data handling, with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information. However, the absence of explicit security headers and a published security.txt file suggests room for improvement in transparency and incident response readiness. Privacy compliance is robust, with clear privacy and cookie policies and GDPR adherence. Overall, Zoom's website reflects a professional, trustworthy, and secure online presence aligned with its enterprise market position. The lack of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust verification but does not detract significantly from the overall credibility given the strong branding and business signals present.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of zoom.us. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 68/ 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

17 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
  Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
  What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
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"
  References
  - 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
  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
  References
  - 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';…
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- 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
  References
  - GDPR Art. 7
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
  - NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
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 472-bit key
  What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA keys for DKIM
  References

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

Keep watching zoom.us

This scan found 33 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: 100
Security headers: 25
Email security: 70
DNS health: 85
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 68
Average: 58
After the cap: 49

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 · found on this site
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention zoom.us, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records: 7,686,196
Employees: 32
Customers: 7,685,891
Third parties: 273
Weak passwords: 10%

Latest record dated 2026-06-04 · 11,800 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for zoom.us.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

–zoom.us2026-06-04
–zoom.us2026-06-03
–zoom.us2026-05-18
–zoom.us2026-05-15
–us01oppbx.zoom.us2026-05-11

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach Monitor on Breach

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Zoom operates a SaaS business model focused on unified communications and collaboration tools for enterprises and SMBs. Its competitive advantages include a broad product portfolio, AI integration, and a strong partner ecosystem. Revenue streams derive from subscription plans, business services, and developer platform offerings. The company targets diverse industries including education, healthcare, finance, government, and retail, with tailored solutions for frontline workers and IT professionals. Growth indicators include continuous product innovation, AI adoption, and global market expansion. Strategic partnerships and a developer ecosystem enhance its market penetration and customer engagement.

Security posture

Zoom's security posture is mature with enforced HTTPS, secure data handling, and privacy compliance. The website does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries. However, the absence of some security headers and incident response contact details indicates potential compliance gaps. No public vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file was found, which could improve transparency and trust. The company provides AI privacy and security resources, reflecting awareness of emerging risks. Overall, Zoom demonstrates a strong security culture but could enhance incident response readiness and security communication.

Recommendations

Implement and publish comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve transparency.
Provide explicit incident response contact information on the website for security issues.
Regularly audit and update third-party libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Enhance user privacy notices with detailed data retention policies and user rights information.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses

55 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, CA 95113, US (map, opens in a new tab)

Legal name

Zoom Communications, Inc.

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Zoom Communications, Inc.
Description: Modernize workflows with Zoom's trusted collaboration tools: including video meetings, team chat, VoIP phone, webinars, whiteboard, contact center, and events.
Key services: Video Meetings, Team Chat, VoIP Phone, Webinars, Whiteboard, Contact Center, Events, AI Companion
Content quality: excellent
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: JavaScript, Coveo Search, Optimizely, Google Tag Manager
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: good
SEO: good

Security

Observed score

85/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enforced
No exposed sensitive data in HTML
Use of Google Tag Manager and Optimizely for analytics and A/B testing

Analytics and tracking

Services: Google Tag Manager, Optimizely
Tracking level: moderate
Privacy practices: good

Advertising

Tracking pixels: Optimizely
Marketing tools: Optimizely
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 rich content and navigation
Strong branding and consistent corporate identity
Comprehensive product and service offerings detailed
Multiple language support via hreflang tags
Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
No visible security or privacy policy issues
WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain registration trust verification

Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including JavaScript frameworks, Coveo search for enhanced search capabilities, Optimizely for A/B testing, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site is mobile optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly with proper meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, with opportunities to optimize loading times further. The absence of a detected CMS suggests a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting details are not explicit but likely enterprise-grade. Technical risks are minimal, though improvements in security headers and incident response mechanisms are recommended to reduce potential operational risks.

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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
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
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
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

8 Oct 202549/100High41 findingsView report
23 Jul 202549/100High42 findingsView report
14 Jun 202549/100High37 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.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing X-Frame-Options header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

GDPR outside view

No Cookie Consent Banner found

Email security

Weak DKIM Key