Skip to main content

Security report for zoominfo.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.zoominfo.com is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX Web Application Firewall (WAF) security challenge page that requires human verification via captcha. This prevents access to any substantive content, metadata, or business information on the site. The WHOIS lookup for the domain returned no registration data, indicating the domain may be unregistered, privacy-protected, or the WHOIS server is restricting access. Due to these factors, a comprehensive analysis of the business, technical infrastructure, and security posture is not possible. The site employs advanced bot mitigation technology (PerimeterX), which suggests a focus on security but also limits external analysis. Overall, the site’s legitimacy and operational details cannot be confirmed from the available data.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

8 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. 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

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

Keep watching zoominfo.com

This scan found 19 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
87
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
67

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

No business intelligence data could be extracted due to the lack of accessible content and absence of WHOIS registration details. The domain’s market positioning, business model, and services remain unknown. No contact information, policies, or social media links were found to provide insight into the company’s operations or partnerships.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the WAF blocking all content. The presence of PerimeterX indicates an investment in bot mitigation and security controls. However, no security headers or SSL configuration details were available for review. The absence of visible privacy policies or incident response contacts suggests gaps in transparency and compliance. The domain’s WHOIS data absence raises concerns about registration legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Work with the site administrators to allow controlled access for security and compliance analysis by trusted parties.
  2. Ensure WHOIS registration data is publicly available or properly configured to enhance domain legitimacy.
  3. Implement and expose clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and trust.
  4. Publish contact and incident response information to support transparency and security readiness.
  5. Regularly audit security headers and SSL configurations to maintain a strong security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

PerimeterX detected. Page is blocked by PerimeterX WAF security challenge requiring human verification captcha. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
PerimeterX

Analytics and tracking

Advertising

Tracking pixels
PerimeterX

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by PerimeterX WAF challenge page.
  2. No actual business content or metadata available for analysis.
  3. No contact, policy, or business information accessible.
  4. No WHOIS data available; domain appears unregistered or WHOIS data is withheld.
  5. Page uses PerimeterX for bot mitigation and security.
  6. No external business-related links or social media links found.
  7. No forms or data collection elements present on the page.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses PerimeterX technology for bot detection and mitigation, which is a modern security approach. However, no other technical stack details, CMS, or hosting provider information could be identified due to content blocking. The page lacks SEO metadata, structured data, or forms, indicating no accessible content for indexing or user interaction. Performance, accessibility, and mobile optimization cannot be evaluated under current conditions.
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. 67/100Medium28 findingsView report
  2. 67/100 +2Medium28 findingsView report
  3. 65/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with zoominfo.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 zoominfo.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.