Skip to main content

Security report for interpolis.nl

Interpolis · Finance · Netherlands

Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

Interpolis is a major Dutch insurance provider offering a wide range of insurance products and risk prevention solutions to individuals and businesses. The company operates under the Achmea group, indicating a strong market position and reputable backing. Their website is well-designed, content-rich, and targets Dutch consumers with clear navigation and comprehensive service offerings. Technically, the site leverages modern marketing and analytics technologies including Sitecore, Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Genesys Chat, demonstrating digital maturity. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical security weakness that undermines user trust and data protection. Security headers are implemented but cannot compensate for the lack of proper SSL/TLS configuration. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are present and appear GDPR compliant, but no explicit security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy from a business perspective but requires urgent security improvements to meet modern standards.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of interpolis.nl. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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. 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 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching interpolis.nl

This scan found 9 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
Security headers
90
Email security
100
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
80

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

Interpolis operates in the finance sector, focusing on insurance products for private individuals, businesses, and agricultural clients in the Netherlands. Their business model centers on providing insurance coverage combined with risk prevention tools and customer service. Partnerships with Rabobank and financial education initiatives like Wijzer in Geldzaken enhance their market reach and service ecosystem. The company benefits from strong branding consistency and a large-scale digital presence. Revenue streams likely include premiums from various insurance products and value-added services. The website's extensive use of analytics and marketing tools indicates a data-driven approach to customer engagement and retention.

Security posture

The current security posture of the Interpolis website is moderate but with significant gaps. While security headers such as CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are implemented, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of HTTPS drastically reduce the security level. This exposes users to potential data interception and undermines trust. No advanced security frameworks or incident response contacts are publicly disclosed. The site uses secure cookie attributes (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite=None) which is positive. Vulnerabilities related to SSL/TLS protocols and cipher suites are present, and HSTS is not enabled. Overall, the site needs immediate remediation to secure communications and enhance compliance with security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or higher protocols and configure strong cipher suites to protect data in transit.
  3. Activate HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload options to enforce secure connections.
  4. Publish explicit security and incident response policies including contact channels for abuse and security issues.
  5. Regularly audit and update security headers and CSP policies to mitigate risks from third-party scripts.
  6. Enhance transparency on data retention policies and user privacy controls to improve GDPR compliance.
  7. Consider implementing a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure program to foster trust.
  8. Improve performance metrics to reduce page load times and enhance user experience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Sitecore CMS platform, leveraging a modern JavaScript stack including jQuery and various third-party analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, Visual Website Optimizer, and Genesys Chat. Hosting appears to be on Microsoft Azure infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features. However, performance data is missing or zero, indicating potential issues with load time measurement or optimization. The extensive use of external domains for analytics and advertising increases the attack surface and requires careful CSP management. The lack of SSL/TLS support is a critical technical debt that must be addressed to secure user data and maintain compliance.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 78/100 −2Low17 findingsView report
  2. 80/100Low16 findingsView report
  3. 80/100Low16 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with interpolis.nl. 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 interpolis.nl.

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.