Skip to main content

Security report for if.ee

If P&C Insurance AS · Finance · Estonia

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

If P&C Insurance AS operates the website if.ee, providing a broad range of insurance products and services targeted at both private individuals and business clients in Estonia. The company offers various insurance types including vehicle, home, travel, accident, and pet insurance, positioning itself as a leading insurance provider in the Baltic region. The website is multilingual and designed to facilitate online insurance purchases and claims management, reflecting a mature digital business model. Technically, the site leverages Microsoft Azure DNS, Episerver CMS, and integrates advanced analytics tools such as Microsoft Application Insights and Google Tag Manager. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern TLS protocols represent significant security weaknesses that could undermine user trust and data protection. The site demonstrates good compliance with GDPR and cookie regulations, including explicit cookie consent mechanisms and published privacy policies. Contact information is clearly provided, including a company email and phone number, alongside active social media channels. Overall, the website reflects a professional and comprehensive insurance service platform but requires urgent security improvements to ensure safe and trusted user interactions.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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 if.ee

This scan found 12 issues across 4 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
100
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
78
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 holds a strong market position in the Baltic insurance sector, offering a diversified portfolio of insurance products for both private and corporate customers. Its business model emphasizes digital self-service capabilities, enabling customers to manage policies, invoices, and claims online. The presence of regional partner domains (if.lv and if.lt) indicates a broader Baltic market strategy. The company invests in marketing and analytics technologies to optimize customer engagement and conversion. The website content is relevant and well-structured, supporting customer education and service discovery. Growth indicators include active promotion of mobile applications and seasonal discounts. The partnership ecosystem includes major cloud providers and marketing platforms, supporting scalability and data-driven decision-making.

Security posture

The current security posture shows moderate maturity with key strengths in email authentication (SPF, DMARC with reject policy) and absence of subdomain takeover risks. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols critically impair secure communications, exposing users to potential interception and data breaches. The absence of HSTS, OCSP stapling, and security headers further weakens the defense-in-depth strategy. No explicit security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found, indicating gaps in transparency and readiness. GDPR compliance is supported by visible privacy and cookie policies, but technical security improvements are urgently needed to align with best practices and regulatory expectations. Overall, the security culture appears basic with room for significant enhancement.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all website traffic.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or higher protocols and disable outdated/insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Configure OCSP stapling to improve certificate revocation checking performance.
  5. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  6. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  7. Enable DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS security and certificate issuance control.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Microsoft Azure infrastructure with DNS managed via Azure DNS and additional name servers. The CMS is identified as Episerver, supporting dynamic content and search capabilities. The technology stack includes jQuery, Microsoft Application Insights for telemetry, Google Tag Manager for marketing and analytics, and Puzzel for chat support. Performance metrics indicate a slow load time (~18 seconds) and a large page size (~1.8 MB), suggesting optimization opportunities. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and ARIA attributes. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph data, and canonical URLs. However, the invalid SSL certificate and lack of TLS support present critical risks. The site uses multiple external domains for content delivery, analytics, and marketing, which are mostly reputable and expected. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires security hardening 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 if.ee. 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 if.ee.

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.