Skip to main content

Security report for anna-web.org

Association of National Numbering Agencies · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA) operates as a global coordinating body for national numbering agencies responsible for securities identification. The website presents professional finance-related content targeting financial institutions and market participants. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress with standard SEO and user management plugins, hosted by GoDaddy. The site is accessible without WAF or security challenges, but lacks explicit privacy, cookie, and security policies. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing security headers and DNSSEC. Overall, the website is legitimate and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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

3 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

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  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 anna-web.org

This scan found 18 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
62
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
79

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

ANNA holds a recognized position in the finance sector as a non-profit association coordinating national numbering agencies worldwide. Its business model focuses on standardization and information dissemination rather than commercial services. The website targets financial professionals and agencies involved in securities identification. The lack of detailed contact and compliance information suggests a focus on institutional users rather than public engagement. The association's domain age and registration details support its credibility.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC, which are recommended for enhanced protection. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, indicating limited transparency in security management. The absence of privacy and cookie policies raises compliance concerns, especially under GDPR. No vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with standard best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security.
  4. Publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure information, including a security.txt file.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and provide clear contact information for business and security inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Association of National Numbering Agencies
Description
ANNA is an association representing national numbering agencies responsible for issuing International Securities Identification Numbers (ISINs) and other financial identifiers. It serves as a coordinating body for these agencies worldwide.
Key services
coordination of national numbering agencies, standards for securities identification, information dissemination
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Fonts
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the main page content.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for SEO and user management.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information detected.
  6. No incident response or security policy information found.
  7. No certifications or compliance badges visible.
  8. Website content is finance-related and professional.
  9. External links primarily to Google Fonts and ICANN for domain status.
  10. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond SEO plugin.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with common plugins like Yoast SEO and Ultimate Member, indicating a mature but standard CMS infrastructure. Google Fonts are used for typography. Hosting is provided by GoDaddy, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. Performance is moderate with some optimization for mobile devices. The site lacks advanced technical SEO and accessibility features but maintains a professional design and clear navigation. Technical risks include missing security headers and lack of DNSSEC, which could expose the site to certain attacks.
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 anna-web.org. 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 anna-web.org.

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.