Skip to main content

Security report for man.com

Man Group · Finance · United Kingdom

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in Security headers.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

Man Group is a well-established, enterprise-level investment management firm with a heritage dating back to 1783. The company specializes in technology-empowered active investment management, offering diversified strategies including quantitative and discretionary approaches, as well as private market investments. Their target audience primarily consists of institutional investors seeking tailored portfolio solutions. The website reflects a strong market position with consistent branding and comprehensive content focused on their investment capabilities and corporate responsibility. Technically, the website is built on Drupal CMS and employs modern web technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot for analytics and privacy compliance. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and SEO-friendly, providing a professional user experience. However, some security headers are missing, and no explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, indicating areas for security posture improvement. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent mechanisms, reflecting good privacy compliance aligned with GDPR. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis, but the website content and external references strongly support legitimacy. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital presence with room for enhanced security transparency. Strategically, Man Group should focus on publishing vulnerability disclosure policies, enhancing security headers, and providing clear incident response contacts to strengthen trust and compliance. These steps will improve their security posture and align with best practices for enterprise financial services websites.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

1 finding 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';…

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

Keep watching man.com

This scan found 13 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
95
Security headers
60
Email security
93
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
86

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 man.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
8,831
Employees
4
Customers
7,891
Third parties
936
Weak passwords
22%

Latest record dated 2026-05-12 · 14 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for man.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –adfs.man.com2026-05-12
  • –adfs.man.com2025-11-13
  • –adfs.man.com2025-07-19
  • –adfs.man.com2025-04-14

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

Man Group operates in the competitive global finance sector, leveraging a blend of quantitative and discretionary investment strategies to serve institutional clients. Their business model emphasizes technology-driven active management and client-centric solutions. The company benefits from a long-standing heritage and a diversified service portfolio including subsidiaries like Man AHL, Man Numeric, and Man Varagon. Their market positioning is strong, supported by comprehensive regulatory disclosures and sustainability commitments. The website indicates a focus on growth through innovation and talent investment, with a clear partnership ecosystem. The absence of direct contact emails and phone numbers suggests a controlled communication approach, typical for institutional firms. Overall, Man Group presents as a credible and mature player in the investment management industry.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, indicating GDPR compliance. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a notable gap. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which could hinder rapid response to security events. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The security score is solid but could be improved by adopting additional best practices and transparency measures. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain trust verification but does not directly impact site security. Overall, the security posture is good but not exemplary.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  2. Add essential security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information on the security or contact pages.
  4. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
  5. Enhance transparency around data retention policies and user privacy practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Man Group
Description
Technology-empowered active investment management focused on delivering performance and client portfolio solutions. Man Group is a highly active investment manager with a heritage dating back to 1783, offering diversified investment strategies and solutions primarily for institutional clients.
Key services
Active investment management, Quantitative strategies (Man AHL, Man Numeric), Discretionary investment approaches, Private market investments (Man Varagon), Solutions for institutional clients
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Drupal CMS, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Lottie Player, Select2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism
  • Security page linked

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. Strong focus on institutional investment management and technology.
  3. Comprehensive legal and privacy documentation present.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via form and social media.
  5. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and compliance tools like Cookiebot.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; opportunity for improvement.
  8. No WHOIS data available from raw output; domain legitimacy inferred from website content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal CMS, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as Select2 and Lottie Player for enhanced UI/UX. Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot are integrated for analytics and privacy compliance. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed through optimization of external scripts and assets. The technical infrastructure appears robust for an enterprise financial services website, though hosting provider details are not disclosed. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and incident response readiness to reduce technical 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 man.com. 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 man.com.

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.