Skip to main content

Security report for heavyfinance.eu

InSoil Finance · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

InSoil Finance is a specialized financial services platform focused on facilitating financing solutions for small and medium-sized farms, with an emphasis on supporting regenerative agriculture and sustainability. The website presents a professional and well-structured digital presence, leveraging WordPress CMS with modern SEO and tracking tools such as Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The platform offers services including green loans, fixed income investments, and an open loans marketplace, targeting investors and agricultural businesses. Technically, the site is well-optimized for mobile devices and demonstrates good performance and SEO practices, although accessibility features are basic. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency, which impacts overall trust. No privacy policy or terms of service were found, indicating compliance gaps. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

4 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 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 heavyfinance.eu

This scan found 20 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
72

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 business operates in the niche intersection of finance and agriculture, providing tailored financial products to support sustainable farming practices. Its market positioning leverages the growing interest in climate-conscious investments and regenerative agriculture. The business model appears to be a platform connecting investors with agricultural loan opportunities, generating revenue likely through loan facilitation fees or investment returns. The target audience includes small and medium-sized farms seeking financing and investors interested in green finance. The website links to related domains such as insoil.com and app.insoil.com, indicating a broader corporate ecosystem. Growth indicators include active content updates and integration of modern marketing and analytics tools. However, the lack of explicit company registration and contact details limits full business intelligence assessment.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent mechanisms, which are positive security and privacy practices. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure policy or incident response contacts are provided, which limits the site's readiness for security incidents. The use of third-party scripts like Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot introduces potential risk vectors that require ongoing monitoring. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, publishing security policies, and providing clear security contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Establish and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file with incident response contacts.
  4. Add explicit company contact information including verified emails and phone numbers for customer and security inquiries.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
InSoil Finance
Description
InSoil Finance combines the most effective ways to facilitate financing to small and medium-sized farms. Invest in the Future of Agriculture.
Key services
Green Loans, Fixed Income Investments, Open Loans Platform
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery 3.7.1, Bootstrap (implied by classes and dropdowns), Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • Use of Google Tag Manager for controlled script loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge detected.
  2. Content is focused on agricultural finance solutions targeting small and medium farms.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on the site.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the visible content.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices observed.
  7. WHOIS data is missing, which reduces trust and requires caution.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery 3.7.1, and Bootstrap framework components for responsive design. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tag management, while Cookiebot manages cookie consent. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation and SEO meta tags including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data describing the organization and webpage. Performance is moderate with some room for optimization. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. The site uses canonical URLs and alternate hreflang tags for English and Lithuanian languages, indicating internationalization support. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained but could benefit from improved accessibility and performance tuning.
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 heavyfinance.eu. 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 heavyfinance.eu.

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.