Skip to main content

Security report for altruist.com

Altruist · Finance · N/a

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

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Altruist is a financial services company focused on providing custody and technology solutions tailored for Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs). The company positions itself as a modern custodian offering lower fees and streamlined client onboarding and portfolio management services. The website reflects a mature business with a domain age dating back to 1999, indicating established market presence. The technical infrastructure is built on WordPress with a modern block theme, leveraging a variety of marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Amplitude, and Google Tag Manager, hosted on AWS infrastructure. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections in place, though there is room for improvement in DNS security and published security policies. Privacy compliance is limited due to the absence of visible privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the website is professional, well-branded, and trustworthy, targeting financial professionals with a clear business model and service offering.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching altruist.com

This scan found 23 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
37
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
65

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

Altruist operates in the finance sector, specifically targeting RIAs with technology-driven custody solutions. Their competitive advantage lies in modern technology integration and cost efficiency. The business model revolves around providing SaaS-like custody and portfolio management services to financial advisors. The website's marketing ecosystem is robust, utilizing multiple ad networks and tracking services to reach its audience. The company maintains active social media channels on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, enhancing brand visibility. The domain's long history supports credibility, and the hosting on AWS suggests reliable infrastructure. However, the lack of explicit contact information and compliance documentation could be improved to enhance customer trust and regulatory adherence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enabled and domain status set to clientTransferProhibited, preventing unauthorized domain transfers. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended best practice to prevent DNS spoofing. No security headers were detected in the provided data, indicating potential gaps in HTTP security configurations. There is no published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are important for transparency and compliance, especially in the finance sector. The extensive use of third-party marketing and analytics scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be enhanced by implementing DNSSEC, security headers, and publishing security-related policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing attacks.
  2. Implement and configure essential security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies clearly accessible from the website footer or main navigation.
  4. Develop and publish a security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and compliance.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and provide a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  6. Add clear and verified contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve trust and compliance.
  7. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Altruist
Description
The custodian of choice for RIAs who want modern technology, lower fees, and more time to do the real work of advising clients.
Key services
Client Onboarding, Portfolio Management, Custodian Services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, jQuery, Yoast SEO, HubSpot, Amplitude Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Swiper, Lottie Player
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
AWS (inferred from DNS)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Amplitude, HubSpot Analytics, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
StackAdapt, Taboola, Bing Ads, Twitter Ads, Facebook Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Reddit Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Pixel, Amplitude, Crazy Egg
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Amplitude
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern WordPress block theme with custom styling.
  2. Strong use of marketing and analytics tools indicating mature digital marketing strategy.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages found in provided content.
  4. No visible contact emails or phone numbers in the analyzed content.
  5. Social media presence confirmed via JSON-LD and meta tags.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using a custom block theme, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries including React and jQuery. It integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Amplitude, Google Tag Manager, and various ad network pixels. Hosting is provided via AWS, inferred from DNS name servers. The site shows good mobile optimization and SEO practices, including use of Yoast SEO plugin and structured data in JSON-LD format. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to improve page load times. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. The technical stack is modern and supports scalability, though reliance on multiple third-party scripts may introduce complexity and potential security/privacy concerns.
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 altruist.com. 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 altruist.com.

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.