Security report for fmg.co.nz

Fmg · Insurance · New zealand

High risk. 19 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 53/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

19 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
  Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
  What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
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"
  References
  - CWE-319
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V3.4.1
  - RFC 6797 §6.1.1
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: hsts_min_age 63072000
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- 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
  References
  - 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';…
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- 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
  References
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
- 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
  References
  - GDPR Art. 7
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
  - NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
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
  References
  - CWE-327
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V12.1.1
  - RFC 8996
  - RFC 7568
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: tls_versions TLSv1.2, TLSv1.3
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8(1): NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8(1): Cryptographic Protection
- 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
  References
  - CWE-326
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection

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

Keep watching fmg.co.nz

This scan found 36 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: 57
Security headers: 40
Email security: 85
DNS health: 70
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 53
Average: 51
After the cap: 49

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 · found on this site
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

FMG holds a dominant position in New Zealand's rural insurance market, leveraging its mutual ownership model to align business interests with member needs. Its competitive advantage lies in deep regional presence, tailored insurance products for rural sectors, and strong brand trust evidenced by B Corp certification. Revenue streams are primarily insurance premiums from diverse rural and provincial clients. FMG targets farmers, lifestyle block owners, and rural businesses, emphasizing community support and risk mitigation. Growth is supported by digital transformation initiatives and extensive regional offices. Partnerships with industry bodies and community programs enhance FMG's ecosystem. The company maintains a clear focus on rural New Zealand, with no apparent diversification into unrelated sectors.

Security posture

FMG demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced across the site and integration of reCAPTCHA to protect forms from abuse. The absence of exposed sensitive data and use of reputable analytics and marketing tools indicate good operational security hygiene. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options, and no publicly available incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies, represent areas for improvement. GDPR compliance is indicated through privacy and cookie policies, but no dedicated security or data protection officer contact is found. Overall, FMG's security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized security documentation to meet evolving compliance standards.

Recommendations

Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
Implement and verify security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
Develop and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Enhance privacy compliance by clearly identifying a Data Protection Officer or privacy contact.
Continue optimizing website performance and accessibility to maintain high user experience and SEO rankings.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses

PwC Centre Level 1 10 Waterloo Quay, Wellington, Wellington Region, NZ, 6011 (map, opens in a new tab)

Legal name

Farmers Mutual Group

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Farmers Mutual Group
Description: FMG is New Zealand’s leading rural insurer. We provide advice and insurance to over 120,000 members and clients living in rural and provincial New Zealand, with employees located across 30 regional offices nationwide.
Key services: Home insurance, Car insurance, Contents insurance, Business insurance, Life and health insurance, Travel insurance
Content quality: good
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: Google reCAPTCHA, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Marketo Munchkin, Hotjar, StackAdapt, Google Fonts, Google Maps API, Squiz Matrix CMS
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: good
SEO: good

Security

Observed score

85/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enforced
Use of reCAPTCHA for forms
No exposed sensitive data in HTML
Use of multiple tracking and analytics scripts with consent

Analytics and tracking

Services: Google Analytics, Hotjar, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level: moderate
Privacy practices: good

Advertising

Ad networks: Google Ads, StackAdapt
Tracking pixels: Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar
Marketing tools: Marketo Munchkin
Transparency: good

Site quality

Design: good
User experience: good
Content relevance: good
Navigation: good
Professionalism: good
Trustworthiness: high

Key observations

Website is fully accessible with no WAF or blocking detected.
Content is rich and relevant to rural insurance in New Zealand.
Multiple trusted third-party analytics and marketing tools are integrated.
No exposed sensitive data or obvious security vulnerabilities found.
WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual but not necessarily suspicious for .nz domains.
Strong branding and consistent messaging throughout the site.
Contact information is clearly presented with phone and physical address.
Privacy and cookie policies are present and indicate GDPR compliance.
No explicit security or incident response policies found on the site.

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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

GDPR outside view

No Cookie Policy found

No Cookie Consent Banner found

SSL/TLS

Weak Protocols Supported

Weak SSL Key Length

Keep watching fmg.co.nz

Daily monitoring

Full report

Results by check

Security headers, 6 findings, score 40/100

SSL/TLS, 5 findings, score 57/100

Email security, 3 findings, score 85/100

DNS health, 4 findings, score 70/100

Network security, 14 findings, score 0/100

GDPR outside view, 4 findings, score 53/100

NIS2 outside view, Earlier method, rescan for details · not counted in the security score–