Skip to main content

Security report for bog.ge

საქართველოს ბანკი · Finance · Georgia

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Bank of Georgia operates a professional and modern website primarily targeting the Georgian population with banking and financial services. The site demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure using progressive web app technologies, modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics and PostHog, and security features like HTTPS and Google reCAPTCHA. However, the absence of explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies in the provided HTML content suggests gaps in compliance and transparency. The security posture is strong in terms of encryption and bot protection but lacks explicit security headers and published incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. Overall, the website reflects a reputable financial institution with a solid technical foundation but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security documentation to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of bog.ge. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

7 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 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

    • 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 bog.ge

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
50
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
64

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 bog.ge, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
6,501
Employees
35
Customers
6,180
Third parties
286
Weak passwords
14%

Latest record dated 2026-02-22 · 54 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 bog.ge.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –pam.bog.ge2026-02-22
  • –pam.bog.ge2026-02-05
  • –accessflow.bog.ge2025-11-02
  • –request.bog.ge2025-11-01
  • –confluence.bog.ge2025-08-24

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Bank of Georgia is a leading financial institution in Georgia, founded in 2002, offering a broad range of banking products and services to the entire Georgian population. The business model focuses on retail and corporate banking with a strong digital presence. The website's consistent branding and long domain age reinforce its market position. The bank leverages partnerships and service domains such as account.bog.ge for account management. The use of advanced analytics and PWA technologies indicates a focus on customer experience and digital innovation. However, the lack of visible contact information and policy documents on the main site may limit customer engagement and regulatory transparency.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated abuse. Service workers are registered to support PWA capabilities. Analytics and session recording tools are used extensively, which may raise privacy concerns without clear consent mechanisms. No explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, representing an area for improvement. The absence of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure programs indicates limited transparency in security governance. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be enhanced by formalizing policies and improving header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response and data protection officer contacts.
  4. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all users.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
საქართველოს ბანკი
Description
საქართველოს ბანკი ქმნის პროდუქტებსა და სერვისებს მთელი საქართველოს მოსახლეობისთვის
Key services
Banking products, Financial services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js), PostHog analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Service Worker, Web Components, JavaScript ES6+, CSS3, Manifest for PWA
Frameworks
Bog Design System
Platforms
Progressive Web App (PWA)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3
  • Service Worker registered
  • Content Security Policy not explicitly detected in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, PostHog
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
PostHog
Marketing tools
PostHog
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content provided.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the HTML content.
  4. Strong use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Security best practices partially implemented but missing explicit security headers and published policies.
  6. Branding and content are consistent and professional.
  7. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and long-term operation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, PostHog analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v3, and Web Components with a custom Bog Design System. It is deployed as a Progressive Web App with service workers for offline capabilities. Fonts are loaded via CDN with preconnect optimizations. The site is mobile optimized and uses manifest files for app-like behavior. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. No CMS was detected from the HTML content. Hosting provider details are not explicit. The technical implementation is robust but could benefit from enhanced security headers and improved accessibility compliance.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 65/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with bog.ge. 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 bog.ge.

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.