Skip to main content

Security report for fintelum.com

Fintelum · Finance · Latvia

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

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Fintelum operates a compliant crypto crowdfunding platform specializing in the issuance and trading of tokenised assets, including security and utility tokens. The company targets businesses seeking compliant fundraising solutions and investors interested in high-growth tokenised projects. Their platform offers services such as KYC/AML compliance, token transfer agency, and secondary peer-to-peer trading, positioning them as a niche player in the intersection of finance and blockchain technology. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand presence with comprehensive legal and privacy documentation, supporting their market credibility. Technically, Fintelum's website is built on WordPress with modern web technologies including jQuery, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and CookieYes for consent management. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices and moderate performance. Security measures include HTTPS enforcement and bot management via Cloudflare, although some security headers are not explicitly detected, suggesting room for improvement. From a security standpoint, the platform shows good practices such as cookie consent and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of explicit security policies and incident response information is a gap. The missing WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain registration transparency, although the active and professional website presence mitigates some risk. Overall, Fintelum presents a credible and functional platform with solid technical and privacy compliance foundations. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security header implementation, publishing explicit security policies, and verifying domain registration details to improve trustworthiness and compliance posture.

Scanned

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 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

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

Keep watching fintelum.com

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
62
Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
77

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

Fintelum is positioned as a specialized platform in the crypto crowdfunding and tokenisation market, focusing on compliance and technology services. Their business model revolves around facilitating compliant token issuance and providing liquidity options through secondary P2P trading. The company leverages partnerships and media mentions to enhance credibility and market reach. Their target customers include businesses looking to raise capital via tokenised assets and investors seeking compliant investment opportunities. The presence of a detailed whitepaper and educational resources indicates a strategy to educate and onboard users effectively. Growth indicators include active social media engagement and continuous content updates. The partnership ecosystem includes recognized industry platforms, enhancing their market positioning.

Security posture

Fintelum demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and use of Cloudflare bot management cookies. The presence of a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR indicates privacy awareness. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the website content. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests potential areas for hardening. The absence of published security policies or incident response contacts limits transparency in security governance. Overall, the platform appears secure for general use but would benefit from enhanced security documentation and header implementation to meet higher compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance browser security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Verify and disclose domain registration details to address WHOIS data absence and improve legitimacy perception.
  4. Conduct regular third-party script audits to mitigate risks from external dependencies.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct periodic security assessments to maintain compliance with evolving standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Fintelum
Description
Compliant crypto crowdfunding platform and primary token issuance and secondary P2P trading market platform with focus on compliance and technology services
Key services
Crypto crowdfunding, Token issuance (security and utility tokens), Secondary P2P trading, KYC/AML compliance, Token transfer agency, Marketing advisory
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 5.9.3, jQuery 3.6.0, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Cloudflare (for bot management cookie), CookieYes (cookie consent management), Slick Carousel
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with customization
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Cloudflare bot management cookie

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
Calendly
Transparency
good

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. Professional and consistent branding with clear business focus
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy present
  4. Multiple external trusted media and partner mentions
  5. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
  6. WHOIS data missing, which reduces trustworthiness score
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information found
  8. Contact information available via forms and phone links but no direct emails or phone numbers explicitly listed in HTML
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 5.9.3 with jQuery 3.6.0 and uses modern front-end libraries such as Slick Carousel for UI components. Analytics and marketing integrations include Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and CookieYes for consent management. The site uses Cloudflare services for bot management, indicating a layered security approach. Performance is moderate with lazy loading implemented for images and scripts. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). The absence of some security headers and incomplete WHOIS data are technical risks that should be addressed to improve overall infrastructure robustness.
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 fintelum.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 fintelum.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.