Skip to main content

Security report for baloise.com

Baloise Gruppe · Finance · Switzerland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Baloise Gruppe is a leading European insurance and financial services provider with a strong presence in Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Liechtenstein. The company offers a wide range of insurance products, financial solutions, and career opportunities, targeting both private and institutional customers. Their website reflects a professional and comprehensive digital presence with extensive content, multi-language support, and clear navigation. Technically, the site employs modern web components and integrates various marketing and analytics tools, though it suffers from an invalid SSL certificate which impacts its security posture. The security configuration lacks essential headers and proper SSL, reducing the overall security score. Privacy compliance is well addressed with comprehensive policies and a robust cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent attention to its SSL configuration to enhance security and user trust.

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

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 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching baloise.com

This scan found 15 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
63

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention baloise.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
208
Employees
0
Customers
200
Third parties
8
Weak passwords
7%

7 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for baloise.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Baloise holds a strong market position as a major insurance group in Europe, focusing on innovative and customer-centric solutions. Their business model revolves around providing insurance and financial services across multiple countries with localized subsidiaries. The company maintains active investor relations and career sections, indicating a mature and transparent corporate structure. Their partnership ecosystem includes regional subsidiaries and integration with major marketing and analytics platforms. The website content and structure support their brand as a reliable and innovative insurer, with sustainability and innovation highlighted as key themes. Growth indicators include active news updates, career opportunities, and investor communications.

Security posture

The current security posture of the Baloise website is moderate but with critical weaknesses. The absence of a valid SSL certificate is a significant vulnerability, exposing users to potential risks and undermining trust. No major vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE were detected, and there is no indication of subdomain takeover risks. However, the lack of security headers and incomplete SSL/TLS support reduces the overall security effectiveness. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, supporting GDPR compliance. Incident response and security policy information are not explicitly found, indicating potential gaps in transparency. The site should prioritize fixing SSL issues and enhancing security headers to improve its security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately renew and properly configure the SSL certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user connections.
  2. Implement essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Conduct regular security audits and update all third-party libraries and scripts to prevent vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance transparency by publishing clear security policies and incident response procedures.
  5. Maintain and improve privacy compliance mechanisms, ensuring user consent and data protection are robust and user-friendly.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack based on custom web components and integrates several third-party services including Google Tag Manager, OneTrust for cookie consent, and Sendinblue for marketing. The DNS setup uses Basler's own name servers, indicating self-managed or dedicated hosting. Performance metrics indicate a slow load time and large page size, suggesting optimization opportunities. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible with good SEO practices. However, the invalid SSL certificate and lack of security headers present technical risks. The site would benefit from performance optimization and enhanced security configurations to reduce technical debt and improve user experience.
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 baloise.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 baloise.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.