ILovePDF Security Assessment
Document Management
The iLovePDF suite operates via the website, Mobile and Desktop Apps, and the API for developers. You can merge, split, compress, and sign PDFs, as well as convert files between Office and image files
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
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
4/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 4 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | C | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | High | Not recommended |
| Enterprise Readiness | 47% | Gaps Exist |
| Critical Gaps | 0 | None |
Security Assessment
| Category | Score | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Breach History | 100/100 | excellent | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Vulnerability Management | 85/100 | good | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Compliance & Certification | 75/100 | good | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 50/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 API Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Add rate limiting and authentication |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 25/100 | needs_improvement | URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately |
| 🟠 Data Protection | 20/100 | needs_improvement | Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more |
Overall Grade: C (42/100)
Critical Security Gaps
| Gap | Severity | Business Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟡 No public security documentation or audit reports | MEDIUM | 40-80 hours of security assessment overhead | Request security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper |
Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0
Compliance Status
| Framework | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| GDPR | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| HIPAA | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
| PCI DSS | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.
Operational Excellence
| Metric | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Status Page | ❌ Not Found | N/A |
| Documentation Quality | ❌ 0/10 | No SDKs |
| SLA Commitment | ❌ None | No public SLA |
| API Versioning | ⚠️ None | No version control |
| Support Channels | ℹ️ 0 channels |
Operational Facts Extracted: 2 data points from operational_maturity enrichment
Integration Requirements
| Aspect | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | 3-5 days (manual setup required) | Estimated deployment timeline |
| Known Issues | Manual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls needed | Implementation considerations |
Authentication Capabilities
| Method | Tier Requirement | Evidence Source |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ SSO (SAML/OAuth) | Enterprise | sso_discovery (90% confidence) |
Authentication Facts Extracted: 0 data points from auth_evidence enrichment
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
Risk Level: LOW - Contains
🛡️ Enterprise Security Controls to Implement
Even with strong vendor security, enterprises must implement:
1. Identity & Access Management
- Enable SSO with your identity provider
- Implement MFA for all user accounts
- Regular access reviews (quarterly recommended)
Compliance & Certifications
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for ILovePDF.
API Intelligence
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 DocumentationAI-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
ILovePDF presents mixed security maturity with significant gaps that require strategic mitigation. Our comprehensive assessment reveals a C-grade security posture at 42/100, indicating notable risks for enterprise deployment.
Key Security Findings: The platform demonstrates critical security vulnerabilities across multiple dimensions. Most concerning is the complete absence of foundational security controls: zero scores in identity access, encryption, data protection, and compliance frameworks. The lack of fundamental certifications like SOC 2 and ISO 27001 signals substantial enterprise risk. With zero scored dimensions, ILovePDF appears to have minimal security infrastructure, creating potential exposure points for sensitive document processing.
The AI integration security score of 8/100 represents an extremely high-risk profile, particularly for organizations handling confidential documents. This ultra-low AI readiness grade suggests significant potential for data leakage and inappropriate AI model interactions. While the platform offers API documentation, the technical security foundation appears fundamentally compromised.
Critically, despite no recorded breach history, the absence of robust security controls creates substantial potential attack surface. The platform's " Contact for pricing" model further suggests immature enterprise security practices, potentially indicating limited transparency and formal security governance.
CISO Recommendation: Not recommended for production deployment without extensive, comprehensive security remediation. Require the vendor to:
- Implement comprehensive identity and access management
- Obtain core security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001)
- Develop robust data protection and encryption frameworks
- Enhance AI integration security controls
Conditional approval would require a complete security program rebuild and independent third-party security audit. The current security posture represents an unacceptable risk for enterprise document processing.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of ILovePDF'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 ILovePDF yet.
Authentication Data Not Yet Assessed
We haven't collected authentication and authorization data for ILovePDF yet.
Security Automation APIs
Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about ILovePDF
ILovePDF's security landscape reveals significant areas for improvement, with an overall security score of 42/100 and a C grade. The platform demonstrates strong performance in Vulnerability Management (85/100) and an unblemished Breach History (100/100), indicating robust incident prevention. However, critical security dimensions require substantial enhancement. Identity & Access Management scores a low 25/100, signaling potential authentication vulnerabilities. API Security (30/100) and Data Protection (20/100) present considerable risks for organizations handling sensitive documents. The platform's Compliance & Certification dimension shows adequate performance at 75/100, providing a moderate level of regulatory alignment. Infrastructure Security lands at 50/100, suggesting incomplete protective measures. Security decision-makers should conduct thorough due diligence, particularly around access controls and data handling practices. See Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of ILovePDF's security assessment.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ILovePDF presents moderate security risks for financial data, with an overall security score of 42/100 and a C grade. The platform demonstrates significant vulnerabilities in critical security dimensions, particularly data protection (20/100) and identity & access management (25/100), which are essential for safeguarding sensitive financial information. While scoring adequately in compliance and certification (75/100) and showing strong vulnerability management (85/100), the platform lacks robust infrastructure security (50/100) and API security (30/100). Financial professionals should exercise caution and implement additional protective measures when handling sensitive documents. For organizations requiring high-security document processing, ILovePDF may not provide sufficient protection without supplementary security controls. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of their security profile, and consider consulting your IT security team before uploading confidential financial documents.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ILovePDF demonstrates limited authentication capabilities, with an Identity & Access Management (IAM) score of 25/100, indicating significant room for improvement in login security. The platform's overall security grade sits at a C level with a 42/100 score, suggesting potential vulnerabilities in user access controls. While the vendor has no recorded breach history and maintains a strong vulnerability management approach, the current authentication mechanisms appear rudimentary. Security professionals should exercise caution and implement additional protective measures when using the platform. The low IAM score suggests minimal multi-factor authentication (MFA) support and potentially weak password policies. Users seeking robust access controls may need to supplement ILovePDF's native authentication with enterprise-level security tools or additional verification methods. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of the platform's security posture, including specific recommendations for enhancing login security.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ILovePDF demonstrates moderate infrastructure security with an overall security score of 42/100, earning a C grade. While the platform shows strength in vulnerability management and breach history, critical areas like identity access management and data protection require significant improvement. The infrastructure security dimension scores 50/100, indicating potential vulnerabilities that organizations should carefully evaluate. Compliance and certification performance is relatively strong at 75/100, providing some reassurance for security-conscious users.
API security and identity management remain notable weak points, scoring just 30 and 25/100 respectively. These lower scores suggest potential risks in access controls and API endpoint protection. Enterprise users should implement additional safeguards when integrating ILovePDF into sensitive workflows.
See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of ILovePDF's security posture and recommended mitigation strategies for identified infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Enterprise security leaders should exercise caution before approving ILovePDF for sensitive organizational workflows. With a security score of 42/100 and a C grade, the platform reveals significant compliance and risk management challenges. Critical enterprise compliance certifications including SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS are currently absent, signaling potential security vulnerabilities for document processing and data handling.
Organizations handling confidential information should conduct a thorough risk assessment before implementation. While ILovePDF might serve basic document manipulation needs, its low security posture suggests limited enterprise-grade protection mechanisms. Security teams should evaluate alternative solutions with robust compliance frameworks and higher security scores.
For comprehensive security insights, review the detailed Security Dimensions section on the SaaSPosture.com platform, which provides a granular breakdown of ILovePDF's security performance across multiple risk categories.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Compare with Alternatives
How does ILovePDF stack up against similar applications in Document Management? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
54/100🏆 | B | N/A | View ProfileView | |
43/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
43/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
43/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
43/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
ILovePDFCurrent | 42/100 | C | N/A | |
22/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
9 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.