Skip to main content

Security report for coface.com.mx

Coface · Finance · Mexico

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Coface is a well-established enterprise operating in the finance sector, specializing in commercial credit insurance and business information services primarily targeting companies in Mexico and beyond. Founded in 1946, the company positions itself as a leader in its market segment, offering products that protect and enhance business growth. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, with clear business descriptions and international reach indicated by multiple localized domains. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript technologies, including Google Tag Manager and a privacy consent SDK, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is mobile-optimized and SEO-friendly, though some accessibility features appear basic. Security measures such as HTTPS and cookie consent are implemented, but explicit security headers and policies are not evident in the provided data. From a security perspective, the absence of WHOIS domain registration data is a notable gap, limiting full trust assessment. However, the website content and structure do not raise immediate red flags. Privacy compliance is partially addressed through cookie consent mechanisms, but no explicit privacy or terms of service pages were detected in the analyzed content. Overall, the site demonstrates a good security posture with room for improvement in transparency and policy disclosures. The overall risk assessment suggests a legitimate and professional business presence with moderate technical and privacy compliance maturity. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing clear privacy and incident response policies, and resolving WHOIS data issues to improve domain trustworthiness.

Scanned

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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching coface.com.mx

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
67
Security headers
90
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
70

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

Coface operates as a key player in the commercial credit insurance market, leveraging its long history and international presence to serve business clients. Its business model focuses on risk mitigation through insurance products and business intelligence services. The company targets medium to large enterprises seeking to protect their commercial transactions. The extensive network of localized domains suggests a broad partnership ecosystem and a strategy of localized market penetration. Revenue streams likely include insurance premiums and data services. Growth indicators include the use of modern web technologies and active social media engagement. The absence of detailed financial or partnership disclosures limits deeper competitive analysis but the brand's global footprint is evident.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS usage and cookie consent compliance. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which may impact transparency and readiness perception. The missing WHOIS data is a concern for domain legitimacy verification. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. Compliance with GDPR is partially indicated by consent mechanisms but lacks explicit policy documentation. Overall, the security maturity is moderate, suitable for an enterprise but with opportunities for improvement in policy transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and terms of service policies to enhance transparency and compliance.
  2. Add and verify security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to strengthen web security posture.
  3. Resolve WHOIS data issues to ensure domain registration transparency and improve trustworthiness.
  4. Publish incident response and security policies to demonstrate preparedness and build stakeholder confidence.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve user experience for all visitors, including those with disabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Coface for Trade
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Coface
Description
Coface ofrece seguros de crédito, información empresarial y productos especializados que protegen y potencian el crecimiento de empresas en México y más
Key services
seguros de crédito, información empresarial, productos especializados
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Privacy Center SDK
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by canonical URL)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Privacy Center SDK
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 challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or invalid, limiting domain trust analysis.
  3. Website uses modern tracking and consent technologies.
  4. No explicit privacy or terms of service pages detected in the provided content.
  5. Contact information is limited to phone and address in structured data; no emails found.
  6. Strong branding consistency and professional presentation.
  7. Multiple international partner domains linked via hreflang tags.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. No explicit security or incident response policies visible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based front end with asynchronous loading of scripts including Google Tag Manager and a privacy consent SDK, indicating a focus on analytics and compliance. The presence of multiple CSS bundles and modular JavaScript suggests a component-based architecture. The site is mobile responsive and SEO optimized with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS or hosting provider details were detected. Performance appears moderate, with potential for optimization in script loading and resource management. The technical debt appears low, but the lack of explicit security headers and incomplete WHOIS data represent technical risks that could affect business operations and trust.
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 coface.com.mx. 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 coface.com.mx.

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.