Skip to main content

Security report for cfins.com

Crum & Forster · Finance · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Crum & Forster is a well-established insurance company specializing in property & casualty, accident & health, and specialty insurance solutions. With a history spanning approximately 200 years, it operates as a true underwriting company empowered to provide expert risk management services. The company targets commercial clients and insurance brokers, offering a broad range of insurance products including surety bonds and specialty lines. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional branding and comprehensive service information. Technically, the site is built on WordPress, leveraging modern analytics and tracking tools such as Google Analytics and LinkedIn Insight, and implements GDPR-compliant privacy and cookie policies with consent management via OneTrust. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and reCAPTCHA integration, though explicit security and incident response policies are not publicly available. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, which raises some concerns about registration transparency, but the overall business credibility is supported by consistent branding and external references to its parent company, W. R. Berkley Corporation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

  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. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching cfins.com

This scan found 19 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
52
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
72

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

The company holds a significant market position in the insurance sector, focusing on underwriting and risk management for commercial and specialty insurance markets. Its business model centers on direct underwriting rather than brokerage, emphasizing expertise and swift decision-making. The website's content and structure indicate a focus on professional clients and brokers, with detailed product and industry segment information. The presence of social media channels and comprehensive privacy compliance suggests a mature marketing and compliance approach. The parent company relationship with W. R. Berkley Corporation further strengthens its market credibility. No direct revenue or financial data is disclosed, but the company's size and history imply a large enterprise operation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers present, including HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and Content-Security-Policy. The use of reCAPTCHA on forms helps mitigate automated abuse. Privacy compliance is robust, with a comprehensive privacy policy, cookie consent banner, and GDPR adherence. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy or incident response page limits transparency on security governance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file suggests an area for improvement in security communication and community engagement.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response information page to improve transparency and trust.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance monitoring and alerting mechanisms for suspicious activities on the website and infrastructure.
  5. Continue to maintain and improve privacy compliance and user consent mechanisms in line with evolving regulations.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Crum & Forster
Description
Crum & Forster provides market-leading property & casualty, accident & health and specialty insurance solutions. A true underwriting company, C&F has a 200-year history of helping customers manage risk with laser-focused expertise, integrity and discipline. Our people are empowered to make decisions and problem-solve with you smartly and swiftly.
Key services
Property & Casualty Insurance, Accident & Health Insurance, Specialty Insurance Solutions, Surety Bonds
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Consent management via OneTrust
  • No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, LinkedIn Insight
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich
  2. No blocking or WAF detected
  3. WHOIS data unavailable, raising questions about domain registration
  4. Strong privacy and cookie compliance observed
  5. Use of modern tracking and analytics tools
  6. No security policy or incident response page found
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  8. Contact information is present and credible
  9. Business information consistent with a large insurance company
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing jQuery and modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics and LinkedIn Insight. It employs Google Tag Manager for marketing and tracking management and integrates Google's reCAPTCHA for form security. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and SEO optimization, including comprehensive meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. The technical stack is modern and appropriate for a large enterprise insurance company, though continuous updates and security patching are essential to maintain integrity.
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 cfins.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 cfins.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.