Skip to main content

Security report for global-riskmanagement.com

Global Risk Management · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Global Risk Management is a company offering customised hedging solutions primarily targeting businesses seeking financial risk management services. The website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and integrates several marketing and analytics tools such as Matomo, Google Tag Manager, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The site presents a professional design with good content relevance and navigation, optimized for mobile devices. However, critical security and compliance information such as privacy policies, terms of service, and contact details are missing, which impacts trust and compliance posture. The WHOIS data is unavailable, raising concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. Security headers and SSL configuration details are not evident, suggesting potential gaps in security best practices. Overall, the website demonstrates moderate technical maturity but requires significant improvements in security, compliance, and business transparency to enhance trustworthiness and reduce risk.

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

5 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • 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

      • 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

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

Keep watching global-riskmanagement.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. See sample alerts.

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
72
Security headers
25
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
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

The company operates in the finance sector, focusing on risk management and hedging services. The business model revolves around providing tailored financial solutions to clients, likely businesses or institutional customers. The website's market positioning appears niche, with no evident large-scale partnerships or certifications. The absence of detailed business information, contact data, and WHOIS registration details limits the ability to fully assess the company's market presence and credibility. The use of common digital marketing tools indicates an intent to engage and track visitors, but the lack of privacy and compliance documentation may hinder customer trust and regulatory adherence.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate but incomplete. HTTPS presence is assumed but not confirmed due to lack of explicit data. No security headers were detected in the provided content, and no explicit security or incident response policies are published. The site uses third-party scripts which may introduce vulnerabilities if not regularly audited. The absence of contact channels for security incidents and lack of vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files further reduce the security maturity level. The missing WHOIS data is a significant red flag, potentially indicating domain registration issues or privacy protection that is not justified. Overall, the site requires enhanced security controls, transparency, and compliance measures to mitigate risks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Ensure domain registration details are accurate, complete, and publicly available to establish legitimacy.
  3. Add explicit security headers and verify SSL/TLS configuration to strengthen security posture.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident communication.
  5. Establish and publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure program to demonstrate security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Global Risk Management
Description
Global Risk Management provides customised hedging solutions, focusing on risk management strategies tailored to client needs.
Key services
Customised Hedging Solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, YouTube iframe API, Matomo Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
50/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Marketing tools
Cookiebot, Sleeknote
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or domain not registered, which is a critical red flag.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via Cookiebot.
  5. No explicit contact information (email, phone, address) found on the site.
  6. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and common marketing/analytics tools.
  7. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL status unknown.
  8. No security or incident response policies visible on the site.
  9. External links mostly to trusted domains for analytics and fonts.
  10. No business certifications or compliance statements found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern CMS platform (WordPress) using the Divi theme, which supports responsive design and SEO optimization via Yoast SEO plugin. It integrates analytics and marketing tools such as Matomo and Google Tag Manager, and uses Cookiebot for cookie consent management, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. Performance is moderate, with preloading of fonts and scripts to optimize loading times. However, the absence of detected security headers and unknown SSL status suggest technical debt in security implementation. The site lacks structured data such as JSON-LD or Open Graph tags beyond basic SEO metadata, limiting rich search engine results. Overall, the technical infrastructure is adequate but requires enhancements in security and compliance features.
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 global-riskmanagement.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 global-riskmanagement.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.