Skip to main content

Security report for afm.nl

Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) · Finance · Netherlands

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) is the Dutch independent regulator overseeing financial markets, ensuring transparency, fairness, and consumer protection. The website serves as an authoritative portal for sector professionals and consumers, providing regulatory information, news, and tools such as provider checks. The AFM holds a strong market position as a government entity with a clear mission to promote sustainable financial wellbeing in the Netherlands. Technically, the website employs modern frameworks like Bootstrap and jQuery, integrates a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot, and uses CDN-hosted libraries to optimize performance and security. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices and structured navigation. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though additional HTTP security headers could enhance protection. Privacy compliance is robust, featuring detailed cookie declarations and GDPR-aligned consent. Overall, the site reflects a professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained digital presence aligned with its regulatory role.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 afm.nl

This scan found 20 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
0
Security headers
35
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
56

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

AFM operates as a government regulator in the finance sector, targeting financial institutions, advisors, and consumers. Its business model centers on regulatory oversight, compliance enforcement, and market supervision. The website supports this by providing sector-specific information, thematic content, and access to registers. The presence of partner domains such as the Dutch Central Bank (dnb.nl) and a dedicated recruitment site (werkenbijdeafm.nl) indicates a collaborative ecosystem. The AFM's content quality and branding consistency reinforce its authoritative market position. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel via contact forms, typical for government entities. The site’s extensive cookie and privacy policies demonstrate a mature approach to data protection and user trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data in the HTML. The integration of Cookiebot provides granular cookie consent management, enhancing privacy compliance. However, the absence of explicit HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a minor gap. No security.txt or incident response contact information is found, which could improve vulnerability disclosure and incident handling transparency. The use of well-maintained third-party libraries from trusted CDNs reduces risk, but ongoing monitoring is recommended. Overall, the site aligns well with best practices for a government regulatory website, balancing security and usability.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  3. Provide explicit incident response contact information or a dedicated security contact channel on the website.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries to mitigate risks from vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features further to maintain compliance with evolving standards and improve user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Description
De AFM maakt zich sterk voor eerlijke en transparante financiële markten. Als onafhankelijke gedragstoezichthouder dragen zij bij aan duurzaam financieel welzijn in Nederland.
Key services
Financial market supervision, Consumer protection, Regulatory compliance enforcement, Information and guidance for financial sector and consumers
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.6.0, Bootstrap 4.6.1, Bootstrap Select 1.13.14, Slick Carousel 1.8.1, Moment.js 2.29.3, Cookiebot Consent Management
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of integrity and crossorigin attributes on CDN resources

Analytics and tracking

Services
Siteimprove
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
Siteimprove, Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured
  2. Strong compliance with GDPR and cookie consent requirements
  3. No visible security vulnerabilities or suspicious content
  4. Comprehensive cookie declaration with detailed cookie categories
  5. Active social media presence on major platforms
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed; contact via forms
  7. Use of modern web technologies and CDN-hosted libraries
  8. No terms of service page detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Bootstrap 4.6.1 for responsive design, jQuery 3.6.0 for DOM manipulation, and Slick Carousel for interactive content. Cookiebot is integrated for consent management, ensuring GDPR compliance. Resources are loaded via reputable CDNs with integrity checks, supporting security and performance. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility and SEO practices. Performance is moderate, likely influenced by the use of multiple external scripts and analytics services. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML content. Overall, the technical implementation supports a professional and secure user experience suitable for a government regulatory body.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with afm.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 afm.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.