Skip to main content

Security report for lombard.finance

Lombard · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Lombard Finance is a specialized platform focused on bringing Bitcoin capital markets onchain, targeting people, protocols, and platforms within the blockchain and finance sectors. The website presents a professional and modern interface, leveraging technologies such as React, Next.js, and Material UI, with content that clearly communicates its mission and ecosystem partnerships. The platform positions itself as a niche player in the Bitcoin capital markets space, supported by notable partners and a staking application.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

  4. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching lombard.finance

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. 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
82
Security headers
70
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
78

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

The company operates within the finance and technology sectors, focusing on blockchain-enabled capital markets for Bitcoin. Its business model revolves around providing onchain solutions and integrations for protocols and platforms. The presence of partner logos from established blockchain and finance entities suggests a credible ecosystem positioning. However, the lack of explicit business registration details and contact information limits full business transparency. The company appears to be small-sized with a focused market niche.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, indicating basic transport security. However, there is no visible implementation of security headers such as CSP, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options, which are recommended for enhanced security. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, indicates gaps in compliance and security transparency. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with better policy disclosures and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain a strong security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lombard
Description
Lombard brings Bitcoin to life onchain, for people, protocols, and platforms.
Key services
Bitcoin capital markets onchain solutions, Protocol and platform integration, Staking application
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Material UI, JavaScript, CSS
Frameworks
Next.js, Material UI
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (implied by https URL)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to privacy or query failure.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found in the scanned content.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the content.
  5. Partners and integrations are prominently displayed, indicating ecosystem trust.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  7. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  8. Security headers and policies are not visibly declared.
  9. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including React and Next.js, with Material UI for styling. It uses Strapi as a CMS inferred from asset URLs. The site is mobile optimized and has good SEO practices with proper meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate with video backgrounds and multiple images, which may impact load times. There is no indication of hosting provider from the data. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from improved accessibility and security header configurations.
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 lombard.finance. 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 lombard.finance.

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.