Skip to main content

Security report for fremontbank.com

Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.fremontbank.com is currently inaccessible due to a Web Application Firewall (WAF) protection mechanism implemented by Incapsula, which blocks direct content access. The WHOIS lookup for the domain returned no registration data, indicating either the domain is not registered, is under privacy protection, or there is an issue with the WHOIS database. Due to the lack of accessible content, metadata, or contact information, a comprehensive analysis of the business, technical infrastructure, and security posture is not feasible. The domain appears to be related to the finance sector based on the domain name, but no further business details are available. The absence of privacy policies, cookie notices, or terms of service further limits compliance assessment.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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

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

Keep watching fremontbank.com

This scan found 24 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
20
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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

Given the domain name, the entity likely operates in the banking or financial services sector. However, no explicit business information, services, or market positioning details are available from the site content or WHOIS data. The lack of accessible content and missing WHOIS information raises concerns about transparency and legitimacy. No partnerships or related domains were identified. The business model, revenue streams, and customer targeting cannot be determined from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the WAF blocking access to the site content. The presence of Incapsula WAF indicates some level of security protection is in place. However, no security headers, SSL configuration details, or vulnerability disclosures are visible. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance gaps. The missing WHOIS data also raises questions about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. Incident response and security contact information are not available, limiting incident management capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Work with hosting and security providers to resolve WAF blocking issues to allow legitimate access and enable full site analysis.
  2. Ensure domain registration information is properly published and accessible to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to meet compliance requirements.
  4. Implement and expose security headers and SSL/TLS configurations to enhance security posture.
  5. Provide clear contact and incident response information to support security and customer trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Incapsula detected. Website content is blocked by Incapsula WAF as indicated by iframe with Incapsula resource and incident ID These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Incapsula

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to Incapsula WAF blocking
  2. No metadata, forms, or contact information available in HTML
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  4. No visible scripts or analytics services beyond Incapsula WAF script
  5. No external links or social media links found
  6. WHOIS data is missing or not found, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy protection
  7. Content safety is rated safe due to lack of content and domain nature
  8. Overall website quality and security posture cannot be assessed due to blocked content
Technical notes

Notes

The website is protected by Incapsula WAF, which currently blocks content access, preventing detailed technical analysis. No CMS, frameworks, or analytics tools are detectable beyond the WAF script. The HTML content is minimal and lacks metadata, forms, or external links. Performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility cannot be evaluated. The lack of WHOIS data and domain registration details further complicates infrastructure assessment. Resolving access issues is critical to enable a full technical evaluation.
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 fremontbank.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 fremontbank.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.