Skip to main content
Bark.com logo

Bark.com Security Assessment

Other Business Software

Bark helps local freelancers by sending them customer requests relevant to their profession & location.

Data: 5/8(63%)
SECURITY VERIFIED • SAASPOSTURE • JAN 2026
C
Top 50%
Bark.com logoBark.com
SaaS Posture Assessment

9-Dimension Security Framework

Comprehensive security assessment across 9 critical dimensions including our AI Integration Security dimension. Each dimension is weighted based on security impact, with scores calculated from .
48
Overall Score
Weighted average across all dimensions
C+
Security Grade
Top 50%
65% confidence

Identity & Access Management

A
Score:0
Weight:33%
Grade:A (Top 10%)

Compliance & Certification

A+
Score:0
Weight:19%
Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

AI Integration Security

NEW
N/A
Score:0
Weight:12%
Grade:N/A

API Security

D
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:D (Below Avg)

Infrastructure Security

D
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:D (Below Avg)

Data Protection

F
Score:0
Weight:10%
Grade:F (Critical)

Vulnerability Management

A+
Score:0
Weight:3%
Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Breach History

A+
Score:0
Weight:1%
Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Incident Response

F
Score:0
Weight:1%
Grade:F (Critical)
🤖

AI Integration Security Assessment (9th Dimension)

Assess whether SaaS applications are safe for AI agent integration using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches and make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors.

Last updated: January 17, 2026 at 08:46 AM

Assessment Transparency

See exactly what data backs this security assessment

Data Coverage

5/8 security categories assessed

63%
complete
Identity & Access
Available
Compliance
Available
API Security
Available
Infrastructure
Available
Data Protection
Missing
Vulnerability Mgmt
Available
Incident Response
Missing
Breach History
Missing

Score based on 5 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.

Evaluation Friction

UNKNOWN
Estimated: Unknown
0% public documentation accessibility

Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.

14 data sources successful

Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility

Comprehensive Security Analysis

In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations

Security Analysis

Executive Summary

MetricValueAssessment
Security GradeC+Needs Improvement
Risk LevelHighNot recommended
Enterprise Readiness49%Gaps Exist
Critical Gaps0None

Security Assessment

CategoryScoreStatusAction Required
🟢 Breach History100/100excellentMaintain current controls
🟡 Vulnerability Management85/100goodMaintain current controls
🟡 Compliance & Certification75/100goodMonitor and improve gradually
🟠 Identity & Access Management60/100needs_improvementMonitor and improve gradually
🟠 API Security30/100needs_improvementAdd rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Infrastructure Security30/100needs_improvementReview and enhance controls
🟠 Data Protection20/100needs_improvementImplement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more
🟠 Incident Response0/100needs_improvementDocument incident response plan

Overall Grade: C+ (48/100)

Critical Security Gaps

GapSeverityBusiness ImpactRecommendation
🟡 No public security documentation or audit reportsMEDIUM40-80 hours of security assessment overheadRequest security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper

Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0

Compliance Status

FrameworkStatusPriority
SOC 2❌ MissingHigh Priority
ISO 27001❌ MissingHigh Priority
GDPR❌ MissingHigh Priority
HIPAA❓ UnknownVerify Status
PCI DSS❓ UnknownVerify Status

Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.

Operational Excellence

MetricStatusDetails
Status Page❌ Not FoundN/A
Documentation Quality❌ 0/10No SDKs
SLA Commitment❌ NoneNo public SLA
API Versioning⚠️ NoneNo version control
Support Channelsℹ️ 0 channels

Operational Facts Extracted: 2 data points from operational_maturity enrichment

Integration Requirements

AspectDetailsNotes
Setup Time3-5 days (manual setup required)Estimated deployment timeline
Known IssuesManual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls neededImplementation considerations

⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration

Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:

Risk Level: LOW - Contains

Compliance & Certifications

0
Active
0
Pending
6
Not Certified

API Intelligence

Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Bark.com.

API Intelligence

Incomplete

API intelligence structure found but no operations extracted. May require manual review.

Incomplete API Intelligence

Our automated extraction found API documentation but couldn't extract specific operations. This may require manual review or vendor assistance.

View Vendor Documentation

AI-Powered Stakeholder Decision Analysis

LLM-generated security perspectives tailored to CISO, CFO, CTO, and Legal stakeholder needs. All analysis is grounded in verified API data with zero fabrication.

CISO

Bark.com presents a mixed security posture requiring targeted remediation strategies. This platform demonstrates marginal security maturity with notable capability gaps that demand immediate strategic intervention.

Key technical security findings reveal critical vulnerabilities across our comprehensive risk assessment. The platform's overall security score of 48 (C+ grade) signals substantial deficiencies in foundational security controls. Most alarming is the complete absence of documented security capabilities across core dimensions - identity access, encryption, data protection, and compliance controls are effectively non-existent, registering zero scores.

The lack of fundamental security certifications compounds these risks. No SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, or HIPAA compliance validates an immature security infrastructure. While no documented breach history exists, the absence of robust security frameworks suggests significant potential exposure.

Particularly concerning is the zero AI integration security readiness score. For an enterprise seeking modern SaaS solutions, this represents a critical vulnerability, potentially exposing sensitive data and operational workflows to unmitigated risks.

CISO Recommendation: Conditional approval is possible only with extensive compensating security controls. Mandatory actions include:

  • Comprehensive third-party security audit
  • Mandatory implementation of multi-factor authentication
  • Detailed vendor security questionnaire
  • Restricted, segmented deployment with intense monitoring
  • Quarterly security reassessment

Implementing these controls may partially mitigate the inherent security risks. However, the platform's current security posture makes it unsuitable for broad enterprise deployment without substantial remediation efforts.

AI-Powered Analysis
Claude Sonnet 4487 wordsZero fabrication

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Bark.com's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.

🏢

Operational Data Not Yet Assessed

We haven't collected operational maturity data for Bark.com yet.

🤖

Security Automation APIs

Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Bark.com

Bark.com achieves a security score of 48/100, earning a C+ grade in SaaSPosture's comprehensive security assessment. The platform demonstrates notable strengths in Compliance & Certification, scoring 75/100, and Vulnerability Management with an impressive 85/100 score. However, critical security dimensions reveal significant improvement opportunities. API Security and Infrastructure Security both score 30/100, indicating substantial vulnerability risks. Data Protection lags with a concerning 20/100 score, suggesting potential data handling and protection gaps. Identity & Access Management shows moderate performance at 60/100, categorized as "needs improvement". While the platform maintains a perfect Breach History score of 100/100, the zero rating for Incident Response raises critical concerns about potential security event management capabilities. Security decision-makers should carefully evaluate these dimensional scores. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of Bark.com's security posture and recommended mitigation strategies.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Bark.com has a security score of 48/100, representing a C+ grade that signals moderate security risk for financial data management. While the platform demonstrates adequate compliance and certification at 75/100, critical security dimensions reveal significant vulnerabilities. API security (30/100) and infrastructure security (30/100) are notably weak, indicating potential exposure to unauthorized access and system compromise. The data protection score of 20/100 further underscores substantial risks in safeguarding sensitive financial information.

Positive indicators include an excellent breach history score of 100/100 and strong vulnerability management at 85/100. However, the near-zero incident response score suggests limited preparedness for managing security events. Financial decision-makers should exercise caution and implement additional protective measures when using Bark.com for sensitive transactions. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of each security parameter.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Bark.com's infrastructure security reveals notable challenges, with an overall security score of 48/100 indicating significant areas for improvement. The platform's security landscape shows mixed performance across critical dimensions. While maintaining a respectable 75/100 in Compliance & Certification and an exemplary 85/100 in Vulnerability Management, Bark.com struggles in crucial areas like API Security (30/100) and Data Protection (20/100). Identity & Access Management performs moderately at 60/100, suggesting potential access control enhancements. Infrastructure Security scoring only 30/100 highlights potential vulnerabilities in network and system protections. Most concerning is the zero score in Incident Response, which signals a critical need for robust emergency protocols. Security decision-makers should carefully evaluate these metrics, particularly the weak infrastructure and data protection dimensions. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of Bark.com's security posture and recommended mitigation strategies.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Bark.com's security profile raises significant concerns for enterprise adoption. With an overall security score of 48/100 and a C+ grade, the platform demonstrates substantial compliance and security gaps that may introduce unacceptable organizational risk. Critical compliance certifications including SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS are notably absent, indicating potential vulnerabilities in data protection and regulatory adherence.

Security decision-makers should exercise extreme caution before approving Bark.com for enterprise use. The low security score suggests potential weaknesses in data handling, access controls, and security infrastructure that could expose sensitive organizational information. While the platform may serve certain operational needs, the security limitations make it challenging to recommend for environments requiring robust data protection.

For comprehensive security insights, review the full Security Dimensions section, which provides a detailed breakdown of Bark.com's security assessment and risk factors.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Compare with Alternatives

How does Bark.com stack up against similar applications in Other Business Software? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.

Application
Score
Grade
AI 🤖
Action
Bark.comCurrent
48🏆
C+N/A
48🏆
C+N/AView
47
C+N/AView
41
CN/AView
38
D+N/AView
27
FN/AView
25
FN/AView
💡

Security Comparison Insight

2 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.