Skip to main content

Security report for marsh.lv

Marsh · Finance · United Kingdom

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

Marsh is a globally recognized leader in insurance broking and risk management, offering tailored solutions across various industries and regions. The website reflects a mature enterprise with a professional digital presence, leveraging Adobe Experience Manager and modern analytics and consent management tools. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforcement, secure login forms, and cookie consent mechanisms, although explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly detailed. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis but is consistent with large enterprises using privacy protections. Overall, Marsh's website demonstrates a solid balance of business credibility, technical sophistication, and privacy compliance.

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. 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 marsh.lv

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. 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
82
Security headers
80
Email security
88
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 marsh.lv, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for marsh.lv 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

Marsh operates as a key player in the finance sector, focusing on insurance broking and risk management services worldwide. Its business model centers on professional services with a global footprint, supported by a parent company, Marsh McLennan. The company targets businesses requiring risk mitigation and insurance solutions, leveraging partnerships and a strong brand. The website's multi-regional structure and sign-in portals indicate a complex ecosystem serving diverse markets. While direct contact details are limited, the presence of contact forms and regional pages supports customer engagement. The company maintains good marketing and analytics practices, balancing user tracking with privacy compliance.

Security posture

The website employs robust security measures including HTTPS, security headers, and secure authentication flows. Cookie consent is managed via Osano, ensuring GDPR compliance. However, there is no public security policy or vulnerability disclosure program, which could enhance transparency and trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of direct security contact channels or incident response information is a gap in the security posture. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved with more explicit policies and disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Provide direct security contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and libraries for vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance visibility of data protection officer contact information to support GDPR compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Marsh
Description
Marsh is a global leader in insurance broking and risk management, bringing global, national, and industry-specific solutions.
Key services
Insurance broking, Risk management, Industry-specific insurance solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Adobe DTM, Osano Consent Management, Helix RUM
Frameworks
Adobe Experience Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure login forms with POST method
  • Consent management for cookies
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Adobe Analytics (via Adobe DTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Adobe DTM
Marketing tools
Adobe DTM
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented via Osano.
  3. Sign-in portal uses secure authentication endpoints.
  4. Multiple regional location pages indicate global presence.
  5. No direct email or phone contact found on homepage; contact via forms.
  6. No explicit security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain registration trust analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Adobe Experience Manager, a robust enterprise CMS, and uses modern JavaScript libraries including jQuery and Adobe DTM for tag management. Google Tag Manager and Osano are used for analytics and consent management respectively. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with good SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with deferred and async script loading. The technical infrastructure supports a global enterprise with multi-regional content and secure user authentication. Opportunities exist to improve hosting transparency and further optimize performance.
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 marsh.lv. 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 marsh.lv.

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.