Skip to main content

Security report for bicm.eu

BICM Ltd. · Finance · Latvia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

BICM Ltd. is a small regional company specializing in insurance claims management, loss management, risk assessment, and consultancy services primarily targeting the Baltic insurance market. The website presents a professional but minimal online presence with basic content describing their services and business focus. The company positions itself as a trusted guide for clients navigating insurance challenges. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with standard plugins and uses HTTPS with a cookie consent banner, indicating some attention to privacy compliance. However, the site lacks critical elements such as privacy policy, terms of service, contact details, and security headers, which limits its overall digital maturity and trustworthiness. Security posture is moderate due to HTTPS but could be improved with additional headers and published policies. Overall, the site is functional but basic, with room for enhancements in content, security, and compliance to better support business credibility and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  2. 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

  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

  4. 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

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

Keep watching bicm.eu

This scan found 30 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
15
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
40

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 · found on this site
  • 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, focusing on insurance claims management and consultancy. Its business model revolves around providing specialized services to insurance companies and clients in the Baltic region. The website suggests a niche market position with limited scale (small size) and no visible subsidiaries or parent company. The partnership with band.lv indicates collaboration for web development or digital services. Revenue streams likely come from service contracts and outsourcing agreements. The lack of detailed contact information and certifications may limit growth and trust with new clients. The company could benefit from expanding its online presence with more comprehensive business information and client engagement features.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses a cookie consent mechanism with secure cookie flags, which are positive security indicators. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security, which are standard best practices to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is published, and no dedicated security contact channels are provided. The absence of privacy policy and terms of service pages also indicates compliance gaps, especially regarding GDPR. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, reducing privacy risks but also limiting user behavior insights. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, publishing policies, and providing clear contact points for security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security incident reporting.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities and maintain security hygiene.
  5. Consider adding a dedicated security or incident response page with contact channels to improve transparency and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BICM Ltd.
Description
BICM Ltd. provides independent claims handling services, loss management, risk assessment and consultancy in various insurance areas. They guide customers through the insurance environment.
Key services
claims handling services, loss management, risk assessment, insurance consultancy, outsourcing
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Fonts, TablePress plugin, Cookie Notice plugin
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with secure flag

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a small regional insurance claims management service provider.
  2. Content is minimal but relevant and professional.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service pages found.
  4. Cookie consent banner is implemented with secure cookie settings.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the homepage.
  6. No social media links detected.
  7. Uses WordPress CMS with some standard plugins.
  8. No advanced security headers detected.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  10. No forms present on the homepage.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using standard plugins like TablePress and Cookie Notice. It loads jQuery and Google Fonts from external sources. The site uses HTTPS with valid SSL configuration, ensuring encrypted communication. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO optimization is basic with meta tags present but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags detected. The site lacks modern JavaScript frameworks or advanced front-end technologies, indicating a simple technical stack. There is no evidence of analytics or marketing tools integrated. The technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist to improve performance, security, and 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 bicm.eu. 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 bicm.eu.

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.