Skip to main content

Security report for finra.org

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. · Finance · United States

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

FINRA.org represents the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a private, not-for-profit organization responsible for regulating brokerage firms and securities professionals in the United States. The website serves multiple audiences including investors, industry professionals, member firms, and case participants by providing regulatory information, compliance tools, educational resources, and dispute resolution services. The organization holds a leading position in the US financial regulatory landscape with a long history and strong market presence. Technically, the website is built on Drupal 10 with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and various analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and LinkedIn Insight Tag. The site is well-optimized for mobile and accessibility, with good SEO practices and a professional design. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly presented with consent mechanisms, reflecting a mature approach to compliance. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and use of security best practices, although explicit security headers are not fully confirmed in the HTML. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The absence of WHOIS data is likely due to privacy protection, which is justified for this type of organization. Overall, the domain and website present a trustworthy and authoritative presence in the financial regulatory sector. The overall risk is low, with recommendations to enhance transparency around security policies and incident response. The site’s extensive use of tracking and analytics is balanced by clear privacy disclosures and user consent mechanisms.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of finra.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

2 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 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. 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 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

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

Keep watching finra.org

This scan found 17 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
75
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
79

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

FINRA operates as a self-regulatory organization in the finance sector, focusing on investor protection and market integrity. Its business model revolves around regulatory oversight, compliance facilitation, education, and dispute resolution. The organization targets a broad audience including retail investors, financial professionals, and member firms. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, exam fees, and regulatory filings. The website reflects a mature digital presence with multiple portals tailored to different user groups, indicating a complex operational ecosystem. Partnerships and related domains support its regulatory functions. The organization’s long history and government-mandated role provide competitive advantages and market stability.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms. Use of modern libraries and frameworks reduces risk of vulnerabilities. No exposed sensitive data or insecure forms were detected. However, explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options are not visible in the HTML and should be confirmed server-side. No public incident response or security policy pages were found, which could improve transparency. The extensive use of third-party analytics and marketing scripts requires ongoing monitoring to mitigate supply chain risks. Overall, the security maturity is high but could benefit from enhanced public security disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Verify and explicitly implement security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance WHOIS transparency if possible, or provide official domain registration information on the website.
  5. Continue to maintain and improve privacy compliance, especially with evolving regulations like GDPR and NIS2.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
Description
FINRA is a private, not-for-profit membership organization responsible under federal law for supervising member brokerage firms in the United States. It promotes investor protection and market integrity.
Key services
BrokerCheck, Registration and Exams, Compliance Tools, Disciplinary Actions, Data Access, Dispute Resolution
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal 10, jQuery, FontAwesome, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, AddToAny Sharing, Bootstrap
Frameworks
Drupal
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-related scripts (e.g., cookie consent SDK)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Pendo
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, Pendo
Marketing tools
AddToAny Sharing
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive, professional, and well-structured.
  3. Strong presence of privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  4. Multiple login portals for different user groups indicating complex service offerings.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, likely due to privacy protection, but website trustworthiness remains high.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 10 CMS, leveraging a modern front-end stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and FontAwesome for UI components. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Twitter Universal Website Tag, and Pendo for user insights and engagement. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, likely due to the number of external scripts and resources loaded. The site uses a cookie consent SDK to manage user privacy preferences. No hosting provider details were found in the HTML. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust and suitable for a large enterprise regulatory organization.
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. 49/100 −31High36 findingsView report
  2. 80/100Low20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with finra.org. 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 finra.org.

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.