Skip to main content

Security report for iqe.im

Boston MFO · Finance · Isle of Man

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Boston MFO is a boutique multi-family office and fiduciary services provider operating primarily in the Isle of Man and Malta. The company offers a broad range of wealth management and corporate services tailored to high net worth individuals and families, including asset protection, luxury asset management, property structuring, and tax compliance. Their market position is strengthened by a heritage rooted in a single-family office with nearly two decades of experience, combined with regulatory licenses in key jurisdictions. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript libraries and SEO tools, providing a professional and responsive user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and reCAPTCHA protections, though improvements in security headers and explicit policies are recommended. Overall, the website reflects a credible and professional financial services firm with good digital maturity and compliance awareness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 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

7 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

  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 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';…

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

Keep watching iqe.im

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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
51

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

Boston MFO targets affluent entrepreneurs and families seeking comprehensive fiduciary and wealth management services. Their business model focuses on personalized, multi-jurisdictional solutions, leveraging regulatory licenses and a trusted heritage. The company emphasizes long-term client relationships and service diversification while maintaining independence. Their partnership ecosystem includes financial authorities and industry recognition such as The Sunday Times Best Places to Work. Growth indicators include expanded service offerings and geographic presence in Malta and the Isle of Man. The website content and structure support their positioning as a trusted, boutique financial services provider.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 on forms to mitigate spam and abuse, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents a gap that could be exploited in certain attack vectors. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, which could hinder transparency and trust in case of security incidents. GDPR compliance is partially addressed via a privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are lacking. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced with additional controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a cookie consent banner to comply fully with GDPR and ePrivacy regulations.
  2. Add and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by detailing data retention policies and user rights in privacy documentation.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Boston Limited
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Boston MFO
Description
Boston MFO is a Multi Family Office and multi-jurisdictional trust and corporate services provider with offices in the Isle of Man and Malta. They offer comprehensive fiduciary services including asset holding, asset protection, trading structures, luxury asset management, property structuring, eCommerce support, listing and sponsor services, and accounting & tax services.
Key services
Family Office, Private Client, Corporate Client, Luxury Assets, Property, eCommerce, Listing & Sponsor Services, Accounting & Tax Services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gravity Forms, Yoast SEO, jQuery, GSAP, fullPage.js, Swiper.js, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented on forms
  • Use of Gravity Forms with validation and spam protection
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is comprehensive and clearly targeted at high net worth clients.
  3. No signs of blocking or WAF interference.
  4. Security practices are good but could be improved with explicit security headers and policies.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present but cookie consent mechanism is missing.
  6. Contact information is complete and includes phone numbers, addresses, and a contact form.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices evident.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, GSAP, fullPage.js, Swiper.js, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site uses Gravity Forms for data collection with integrated Google reCAPTCHA v3 for spam protection. SEO is enhanced by Yoast SEO plugin with structured data (JSON-LD) for rich snippets. Performance is moderate with preloading of images and deferred script loading. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well addressed with responsive design and ARIA landmarks. Hosting provider details are not explicit but the site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate. Technical risks include potential outdated plugins or missing security headers, which should be monitored and remediated.
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 iqe.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 iqe.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.