Skip to main content

Security report for jpmorgan.am

J.P. Morgan · Finance · Finland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

J.P. Morgan Finland is a regional subsidiary of the global financial services leader JPMorgan Chase & Co., with a presence dating back to 1982. The website reflects a mature, enterprise-level financial institution offering a broad range of services including investment banking, commercial banking, payments, asset management, and private banking. The site is well-structured, professionally designed, and targets corporate, institutional, and individual clients primarily in Finland and the broader Nordic and EMEA regions. Technically, the site leverages Adobe Experience Manager as its CMS, integrates Brightcove for video content, and employs modern analytics and consent management tools such as Adobe Target and OneTrust. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced, appropriate security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, with active consent mechanisms. Overall, the site demonstrates high professionalism, trustworthiness, and compliance with industry standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
63/ 100 · Medium
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

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

      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. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      No Name Servers Found

      Unable to find name servers for domain

      What to do: Configure proper name servers for the domain

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

Keep watching jpmorgan.am

This scan found 16 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
75
Email security
70
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
63
Average
61

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

J.P. Morgan Finland operates as an essential entity within the global JPMorgan Chase & Co. ecosystem, serving a diverse client base across multiple financial sectors. The business model is centered on providing comprehensive financial solutions including commercial banking, credit and financing, institutional investing, investment banking, payments, private banking, and wealth management. The firm maintains a strong market position in the Nordic region, supported by a sophisticated local presence and a global network. The website content and navigation clearly reflect the firm's strategic focus on serving corporations, institutions, and high-net-worth individuals. The presence of multiple related domains and partner networks indicates a robust partnership ecosystem. The company’s philanthropic efforts and long history enhance its credibility and brand strength.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, presence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive information or use of vulnerable libraries in the HTML content. The site uses secure forms and does not display any signs of common web vulnerabilities. However, there is no explicit public security policy or incident response contact information found, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. The cookie consent mechanism is robust and aligns with GDPR requirements, indicating good privacy and data protection practices. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from publishing additional security governance information.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page detailing frameworks and incident response procedures.
  2. Add explicit contact channels for security incidents (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails).
  3. Consider implementing and publishing a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  4. Maintain continuous monitoring and timely updates of third-party libraries and scripts.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing more detailed data retention and privacy compliance information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
J.P. Morgan
Description
J.P. Morgan is a global leader in financial services, offering solutions to corporations, governments, and institutions in over 100 countries. The Finland presence dates back to 1982 with a subsidiary in Helsinki. The firm provides services across Investment Banking, Commercial and Corporate Banking, Payments, Securities Services, Markets, Asset Management, and Private Banking. It has a strong regional presence in EMEA with a head office in London and offices in major financial centers.
Key services
Investment Banking, Commercial Banking, Payments, Securities Services, Markets, Asset Management, Private Banking, Wealth Management
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Brightcove Video Player, Video.js, OneTrust Cookie Consent, Algolia Search, Adobe Target, Adobe Helix RUM, Boomerang (Performance Monitoring)
Frameworks
Adobe Experience Manager
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of security headers
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with no visible vulnerabilities

Analytics and tracking

Services
Adobe Helix RUM, Boomerang
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Adobe Target, OneTrust, Boomerang
Marketing tools
Adobe Target, OneTrust, Algolia
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. The website is a legitimate, professional financial services site for J.P. Morgan in Finland.
  2. Comprehensive navigation and content covering multiple financial service sectors.
  3. Strong privacy and cookie compliance with user consent mechanisms.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and performance monitoring tools.
  5. No signs of security blocking or WAF challenges.
  6. Social media presence on major platforms with official links.
  7. No exposed sensitive data or obvious security vulnerabilities in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Adobe Experience Manager, a robust enterprise CMS, ensuring scalability and content management efficiency. It integrates Brightcove for rich media delivery and uses Video.js for video playback. The site employs advanced analytics and performance monitoring tools including Adobe Helix RUM and Boomerang, indicating a focus on performance and user experience. The presence of OneTrust for cookie consent management demonstrates compliance with privacy regulations. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features. Hosting appears to be via a secure, high-performance provider, likely leveraging Akamai CDN services. The technical implementation is modern, well-structured, and aligns with best practices for enterprise financial websites.
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 jpmorgan.am. 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 jpmorgan.am.

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.