Skip to main content

Security report for iomfsa.im

Isle of Man Financial Services Authority · Finance · Isle of Man

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) operates as the primary regulatory body overseeing a broad range of financial sectors within the Isle of Man, including banking, insurance, investment business, pensions, and designated businesses. The website reflects a well-structured regulatory authority with comprehensive information on regulated sectors, enforcement, AML/CFT, and innovation initiatives. The target audience includes financial institutions, regulated entities, consumers, and professionals within the Isle of Man's financial ecosystem. The business model is typical of a government regulatory authority, funded through fees and government oversight, with a medium organizational size and a strong market position as the island's financial regulator. Technically, the website employs a modern but straightforward technology stack including jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation clarity and SEO practices, though accessibility features are basic. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts enhancing user experience. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses Google Tag Manager and Analytics scripts responsibly. However, it lacks explicit security headers and dedicated security or incident response policy pages. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Privacy compliance is adequate with a clear privacy policy and cookie policy present, though no active cookie consent mechanism is implemented. Contact information is limited to a contact form and social media links, with no direct emails or phone numbers visible. Overall, the website demonstrates a solid security posture and business credibility appropriate for a government financial regulator. Recommendations include enhancing security headers, implementing cookie consent mechanisms, publishing incident response policies, and auditing third-party scripts regularly to maintain security and compliance standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching iomfsa.im

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
65
Email security
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
65

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention iomfsa.im, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for iomfsa.im right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The IOMFSA holds a critical regulatory role in the Isle of Man's financial sector, overseeing multiple regulated sectors such as banking, insurance, investment business, pensions, and designated businesses. Its competitive advantage lies in its authoritative position as the island's financial regulator, providing licensing, supervision, enforcement, and consumer protection services. The business model is regulatory and compliance-focused, funded primarily through fees from regulated entities and government support. The target customer segments include financial institutions, regulated entities, consumers, and professionals requiring regulatory guidance. Growth indicators include active innovation initiatives such as sandbox processes and cryptoasset guidance. The partnership ecosystem includes links to international standards and cooperation with global regulatory bodies. Strategic observations highlight a comprehensive regulatory framework with strong consumer awareness and enforcement capabilities, positioning the IOMFSA as a trusted and essential financial authority.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS enforced and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of Google Tag Manager and Analytics is implemented with asynchronous loading to reduce performance impact. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options represents an area for improvement. No explicit incident response or security policy documentation is present, which could impact readiness and transparency in case of security incidents. The forms present are minimal and use safe GET methods with input length restrictions, reducing injection risks. Privacy compliance is adequate but could be enhanced with an active cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is good but would benefit from additional hardening and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit security and incident response policies to improve transparency and preparedness for security events.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply fully with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts such as Google Tag Manager and Analytics to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with accessibility standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Isle of Man Financial Services Authority
Description
The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority is the regulatory body overseeing financial services sectors including banking, insurance, investment business, pensions, and designated businesses in the Isle of Man. It provides regulatory guidance, licensing, supervision, enforcement, and consumer protection.
Key services
Regulation and supervision of financial sectors, Licensing and compliance support, Consumer awareness and protection, Enforcement and sanctions, AML/CFT oversight, Innovation and sandbox facilitation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.1.1, Font Awesome 4.7.0, Google Fonts (Lato), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, jPList (pagination and filtering)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with async loading
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • Forms use GET method for search with limited input length

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Content is well structured with comprehensive navigation menus covering regulatory sectors
  3. Use of multiple Google tracking scripts indicates moderate user tracking
  4. No explicit security or incident response policies found
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers visible on homepage or footer
  6. Social media presence on Twitter and LinkedIn confirmed
  7. Privacy and cookie policies are present but cookie consent mechanism is not implemented
  8. No visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data in HTML content
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a stable and widely supported technology stack including jQuery 3.1.1, Font Awesome 4.7.0, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics. The asynchronous loading of scripts improves page load performance. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design elements and clear navigation structures. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Accessibility is basic, indicating potential for improvement to meet modern standards. SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags and structured navigation. Technical risks are low but include the need for updated security headers and enhanced privacy mechanisms to reduce compliance risks.
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 iomfsa.im. 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 iomfsa.im.

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.