Skip to main content

Security report for agrapoistovna.sk

Agra poisťovňa · Finance · Slovakia

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Agra poisťovňa is a Slovak insurance company offering various insurance products and services targeted at individuals and businesses within Slovakia. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image with a focus on customer engagement through contact forms and informational content. The technical infrastructure leverages WordPress CMS, Bootstrap framework, and integrates third-party services such as Google Tag Manager and Usercentrics for analytics and cookie consent management, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, though explicit privacy and security policies are absent, representing an area for improvement. Overall, the website is trustworthy and functional, serving its business purpose effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

7 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, YouTube, Cloudflare, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching agrapoistovna.sk

This scan found 24 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
47
Security headers
80
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
61

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

The company operates in the finance sector, specifically insurance, with a medium-sized market presence in Slovakia. Its business model revolves around providing insurance products and consulting services. The website's content and structure suggest a focus on local customers, with no evident international expansion. The use of modern web technologies and consent management tools indicates awareness of regulatory compliance and user privacy. However, the absence of detailed privacy and terms policies may limit full compliance and customer trust. The company appears to maintain a professional online presence but could benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and cookie consent via Usercentrics. However, the lack of explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests limited transparency in security governance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Security headers are implied but not explicitly confirmed, and no outdated or vulnerable libraries were identified. The security score is moderate, reflecting a need for formalized policies and improved security communication to users and stakeholders.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy detailing data processing and user rights.
  2. Add a terms of service page to clarify user agreements and liabilities.
  3. Develop and disclose security and incident response policies including contact channels.
  4. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Agra poisťovňa
Description
Insurance company providing various insurance services in Slovakia.
Key services
Insurance products, Customer support, Consulting services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
YouTube iframe API, Google Tag Manager, Usercentrics Consent Management Platform, Bootstrap 3.3.7, Custom fonts (DINWeb, Material Icons)
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Usercentrics
Marketing tools
Usercentrics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS and modern consent management.
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found.
  3. Contact information partially visible but no explicit emails or phone numbers in provided HTML.
  4. Uses Google Tag Manager and Usercentrics for analytics and cookie consent.
  5. Professional design with responsive layout.
  6. No signs of malicious or suspicious content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with Bootstrap 3.3.7, using custom fonts and integrating YouTube iframe API and Google Tag Manager. The presence of Usercentrics indicates a modern approach to cookie consent and privacy compliance. Performance is moderate with standard responsive design and mobile optimization. The site uses external domains primarily for analytics, consent management, and media delivery. No major technical debts or risks were identified, but updating to newer Bootstrap versions and enhancing SEO and accessibility could improve overall quality.
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 agrapoistovna.sk. 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 agrapoistovna.sk.

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.