Skip to main content

Security report for askkodiak.com

Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Ask Kodiak operates as a commercial insurance appetite and eligibility platform targeting professionals and businesses within the insurance sector. The platform positions itself as a favored resource in the commercial insurance market, offering services that facilitate insurance appetite and eligibility assessments. However, the website content is minimal and lacks critical business contact information and policy disclosures, which limits transparency and user trust. Technically, the website is built using AngularJS and integrates third-party services such as Intercom for customer engagement and Statuspage.io for status monitoring. Hosting is managed via Cloudflare, but the site lacks a valid SSL/TLS certificate and does not support HTTPS, which is a significant security and trust concern. Performance metrics are incomplete, and SEO optimization is basic, with only minimal meta tags present. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS, invalid SPF records, and missing DMARC policies expose the domain to email spoofing risks and reduce overall security posture. No security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, indicating low maturity in security governance. The site does not implement modern security headers or protocols, and cookie management lacks consent mechanisms. Overall, the website presents a low security and privacy compliance posture with basic technical implementation and limited business credibility signals. Strategic improvements in SSL deployment, security policy publication, and contact transparency are critical to enhancing trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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 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

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

Keep watching askkodiak.com

This scan found 21 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
85
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
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

Ask Kodiak targets the commercial insurance sector, providing a platform focused on insurance appetite and eligibility. The business model revolves around delivering specialized data and insights to insurance professionals and businesses. Market positioning is that of a favored platform within its niche, though the lack of detailed business information and contact data limits external validation. The platform likely generates revenue through subscription or service fees, though no explicit monetization details are available. The integration of Intercom suggests a focus on customer engagement and support. The absence of social media or partner links indicates a limited public partnership ecosystem. Growth indicators and founding year are not disclosed, and the company appears to be small in size.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability. Email security is compromised by multiple conflicting SPF records and the absence of DMARC, increasing the risk of phishing and spoofing attacks. No security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure programs are published, indicating immature security governance. The site does not implement recommended security headers or modern TLS protocols, and cookie management lacks consent mechanisms. While no active vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, the overall security configuration is insufficient for a professional business platform.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site.
  2. Consolidate SPF records into a single valid record and implement a DMARC policy to improve email security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  4. Add contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance security posture.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses AngularJS as its primary front-end framework, with integrations including Intercom for customer communication and Statuspage.io for status updates. Hosting is via Cloudflare, providing CDN and DNS services. However, SSL/TLS is not configured, resulting in no HTTPS support and no modern TLS protocols enabled. Performance metrics are unavailable or unmeasured, indicating potential gaps in monitoring. SEO is basic with minimal meta tags and no structured data like Open Graph or JSON-LD. Accessibility and mobile optimization are basic, with no explicit ARIA or accessibility features detected. The site lacks forms and user input fields, reducing attack surface but also limiting user interaction capabilities.
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 askkodiak.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 askkodiak.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.