Skip to main content

Security report for zulipchat.com

Kandra Labs, Inc. · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Zulip, operated by Kandra Labs, Inc., is a mature and well-established technology company specializing in organized team chat solutions tailored for distributed teams. The company offers both cloud-hosted and self-hosted open-source chat software, targeting businesses, educational institutions, research groups, open-source projects, and communities. Their market position is defined by a focus on asynchronous communication and flexibility, supported by a professional and content-rich website that highlights case studies, client logos, and testimonials. Technically, Zulip employs a modern JavaScript-based tech stack with Webpack bundling, integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for analytics, and uses Sentry for error tracking. Hosting is inferred to be on Amazon AWS, supported by the use of AWS DNS servers. The website is fast, mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, reflecting a high level of digital maturity. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses domain transfer protection, and promotes self-hosting of open-source software for ultimate control. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and there is no explicit incident response contact or vulnerability disclosure policy published. Privacy compliance is good with a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service, but the absence of a cookie consent mechanism is a minor gap. Overall, Zulip presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and technical implementation. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, adding cookie consent mechanisms, publishing incident response contacts, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure program to further enhance trust and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

4 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 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 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

  3. 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

      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

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

Keep watching zulipchat.com

This scan found 15 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
80
Security headers
50
Email security
95
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
79

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

Zulip operates in the competitive team collaboration software market with a unique value proposition centered on asynchronous communication and open-source self-hosting. Their business model combines SaaS offerings with free and open-source software, appealing to a broad audience from small businesses to large enterprises and educational institutions. The company leverages community engagement and transparency through open-source development and detailed case studies. Their partnership ecosystem includes integrations with popular tools and platforms, although no explicit partner domains were identified. Growth indicators include a decade-long domain presence and active community channels. The company maintains a professional online presence with strong branding consistency and trust signals such as client logos and industry badges.

Security posture

Zulip demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections in place. The promotion of self-hosting open-source software aligns with best practices for data control and compliance. However, the lack of DNSSEC implementation and absence of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure information represent areas for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The use of Sentry for error monitoring and Google Analytics for tracking is standard but requires transparent user consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture appears proactive but could benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to strengthen DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish clear incident response contact information and establish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Enhance transparency around data retention policies and user privacy related to analytics and tracking.
  5. Continue to promote and document security best practices for self-hosted deployments to build customer trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Kandra Labs, Inc.
Description
Zulip is an organized team chat app for distributed teams of all sizes.
Key services
Team chat application, Cloud-hosted chat service, Self-hosted open-source chat software, Integrations and APIs, Desktop and mobile apps
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Webpack, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Sentry
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • Open source software for self-hosting
  • Security page available

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is rich, well-structured, and professionally presented.
  3. Strong emphasis on open-source and self-hosting options.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the main pages.
  5. Social media presence includes Twitter, Mastodon, and LinkedIn.
  6. No cookie consent banner detected despite use of tracking scripts.
  7. No explicit vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  8. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and long-term operation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including JavaScript and Webpack for efficient bundling and loading. It integrates third-party analytics and error tracking services such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Sentry. Hosting is likely on Amazon AWS, inferred from DNS servers. The site is well-optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data for SEO and social sharing. No CMS was detected, indicating a custom or static site architecture. Technical risks are minimal, with no outdated or vulnerable libraries identified in the provided scripts. Opportunities exist to improve DNS security and privacy compliance mechanisms.
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. 78/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with zulipchat.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 zulipchat.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.