Skip to main content

Security report for achmeabank.nl

Achmea Bank · Finance · Netherlands

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Achmea Bank is a well-established Dutch financial institution operating under the larger Achmea group, providing savings, mortgage, and investment products primarily to individual customers in the Netherlands. The website reflects a mature business with consistent branding and clear communication of its services and subsidiaries. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies including React and is managed via the Sitecore CMS platform, hosted likely on AWS infrastructure. However, the website suffers from critical security shortcomings, notably the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which severely impacts its security posture and trustworthiness. Privacy policies and cookie information are present and appear GDPR compliant, though no explicit contact emails or phone numbers are published on the homepage, relying instead on contact forms. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and maintain trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of achmeabank.nl. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 100 · Critical
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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

    • 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching achmeabank.nl

This scan found 14 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
50
Security headers
75
Email security
50
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
58

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

Achmea Bank holds a strong market position as part of one of the largest financial service providers in the Netherlands, leveraging its cooperative background and multiple subsidiary brands such as Centraal Beheer, Acier Financieringen, and Attens Hypotheken. Its business model focuses on retail financial products including savings accounts, mortgages, and investment services. The company targets Dutch individual consumers seeking reliable financial solutions. The website's linkage to subsidiary domains and consistent branding supports a cohesive partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators include recent news on bond placements and financial reports. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel, likely for compliance and security reasons.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and no enabled TLS protocols, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and HSTS are present, the incomplete HSTS implementation and absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption reduce effectiveness. DNSSEC is not validated, and CAA records are malformed, indicating DNS configuration issues. The site uses secure cookie flags but lacks domain protection locks, increasing risk of domain hijacking. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found, which limits transparency. Overall, the site requires immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues and DNS record corrections to improve security and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting TLS 1.2 or higher to secure all website traffic.
  2. Enable full HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce HTTPS.
  3. Correct CAA DNS records to valid entries to restrict certificate issuance.
  4. Implement domain protection locks such as registry and transfer locks to prevent unauthorized changes.
  5. Add explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure information to improve transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React and managed through the Sitecore CMS, indicating a modern and scalable technical infrastructure. Hosting appears to be on AWS, providing reliable performance and availability. However, performance metrics are missing or zero, suggesting incomplete data or potential issues. The site is mobile optimized and has good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but present. The lack of valid SSL/TLS and incomplete DNS security configurations represent significant technical risks. The use of external marketing scripts like r42tag is minimal and does not heavily impact privacy. Overall, the technical foundation is solid but requires urgent security upgrades and performance monitoring.
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. 58/100 −3Medium21 findingsView report
  2. 61/100Medium19 findingsView report
  3. 61/100Medium19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with achmeabank.nl. 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 achmeabank.nl.

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.