Skip to main content

Security report for fbto.nl

FBTO · Finance · Netherlands

Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

FBTO is a Dutch insurance provider offering a wide range of customizable insurance products including auto, health, travel, home, and legal assistance insurance. The company operates under the Achmea group umbrella, which strengthens its market position and trustworthiness. The website is professionally designed with clear navigation and good content quality, targeting Dutch consumers seeking flexible insurance solutions. Technically, the site uses a modern tech stack including Sitecore CMS, Azure hosting, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools. However, the security posture is weakened by the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, which are critical issues that must be addressed immediately to protect user data and maintain trust. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is functional and credible but requires urgent security improvements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • 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: Facebook, 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 fbto.nl

This scan found 9 issues across 4 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
100
Security headers
90
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
80

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 fbto.nl, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
10,138
Employees
0
Customers
10,137
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
5%

17 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 fbto.nl.

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

FBTO leverages its parent company Achmea's reputation to maintain a strong market presence in the Dutch insurance sector. Its business model focuses on direct online sales and customer self-service, supported by chat and WhatsApp channels. The company targets individual consumers with customizable insurance products, enhancing customer engagement and satisfaction. The presence of certifications and endorsements like Thuiswinkel.org and Wijzer in Geldzaken further solidifies its credibility. The website's integration with multiple analytics and marketing platforms indicates a mature digital marketing strategy. Partnerships with trusted organizations and active social media presence support brand visibility and customer trust.

Security posture

The website implements several security best practices such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HttpOnly cookies with SameSite attributes. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that expose users to potential data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The absence of OCSP stapling and incomplete HSTS configuration further weaken the security posture. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. Overall, while some security headers are well configured, the fundamental SSL/TLS issues significantly reduce the security score and pose a high risk.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user data.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated versions.
  3. Enhance HSTS policy by including subdomains and enabling preload to prevent downgrade attacks.
  4. Implement OCSP stapling to improve certificate revocation checking and reduce latency.
  5. Publish an incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and security culture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a robust technical foundation using Sitecore CMS hosted on Microsoft Azure infrastructure. It employs modern JavaScript libraries and integrates with multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing, and content delivery via CDNs. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses structured data (JSON-LD) extensively for SEO benefits. Performance metrics are not provided, but the use of preloading fonts and deferred script loading indicates attention to optimization. Accessibility features are basic but present. The main technical risk lies in the SSL/TLS configuration, which is currently inadequate and requires urgent remediation to avoid compromising user security 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 80/100Low17 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with fbto.nl. 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 fbto.nl.

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.