Skip to main content
ILovePDF logo

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

Data: 4/8(50%)
SECURITY VERIFIED • SAASPOSTURE • JAN 2026
C
Top 50%
ILovePDF logoILovePDF
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 .
42
Overall Score
Weighted average across all dimensions
C
Security Grade
Top 50%
61% confidence

Identity & Access Management

F
Score:0
Weight:33%
Grade:F (Critical)

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

B
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:B (Top 25%)

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%)
🤖

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

50%
complete
Identity & Access
Available
Compliance
Available
API Security
Available
Infrastructure
Available
Data Protection
Missing
Vulnerability Mgmt
Missing
Incident Response
Missing
Breach History
Missing

Score based on 4 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.

17 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 GradeCNeeds Improvement
Risk LevelHighNot recommended
Enterprise Readiness47%Gaps Exist
Critical Gaps0None

Security Assessment

CategoryScoreStatusAction Required
🟢 Breach History100/100excellentMaintain current controls
🟡 Vulnerability Management85/100goodMaintain current controls
🟡 Compliance & Certification75/100goodMonitor and improve gradually
🟠 Infrastructure Security50/100needs_improvementReview and enhance controls
🟠 API Security30/100needs_improvementAdd rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Identity & Access Management25/100needs_improvementURGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately
🟠 Data Protection20/100needs_improvementImplement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more

Overall Grade: C (42/100)

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

Authentication Capabilities

MethodTier RequirementEvidence Source
✅ SSO (SAML/OAuth)Enterprisesso_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

0
Active
0
Pending
6
Not Certified

API Intelligence

Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for ILovePDF.

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

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:

  1. Implement comprehensive identity and access management
  2. Obtain core security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001)
  3. Develop robust data protection and encryption frameworks
  4. 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.

AI-Powered Analysis
Claude Sonnet 4508 wordsZero fabrication

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
Score
Grade
AI 🤖
Action
54🏆
BN/AView
43
CN/AView
43
CN/AView
43
CN/AView
43
CN/AView
ILovePDFCurrent
42
CN/A
22
FN/AView
💡

Security Comparison Insight

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