Skip to main content

Security report for nayms.com

Nayms · Finance · Bermuda

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

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Nayms operates as a pioneering regulated marketplace for on-chain insurance, bridging the $2.7 trillion general insurance industry with tokenized real-world assets. The platform enables investors, insurers, brokers, and captives to participate in a transparent, blockchain-powered ecosystem where insurance pools are tokenized, allowing for capital raising, trading, and governance via smart contracts. Licensed by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, Nayms positions itself as the world's first fully-regulated marketplace in this niche, leveraging crypto-native captives and discretionary funds to enhance security and capital access. Technically, Nayms employs a modern web infrastructure built on Webflow CMS, enriched with advanced analytics tools such as Segment, LogRocket, and Plausible, alongside marketing and user engagement platforms like Intercom and Clearbit. The site is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, with comprehensive privacy and cookie policies ensuring GDPR compliance. The use of reCAPTCHA and cookie consent mechanisms further strengthens user security and privacy. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and integrates multiple security best practices, though explicit security headers and dedicated security policies are not fully documented. The absence of WHOIS domain registration data introduces some uncertainty regarding domain ownership transparency, warranting further verification. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious activities were detected in the website content or linked domains. Overall, Nayms presents a professional, trustworthy, and innovative platform with strong market positioning in the insurtech and blockchain sectors. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around domain registration, publishing detailed security and incident response policies, and expanding direct contact information to bolster business credibility and user trust.

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 nayms.com

This scan found 18 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
72
Security headers
60
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
81

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

Nayms occupies a unique market niche as a regulated on-chain insurance marketplace, targeting investors seeking uncorrelated asset classes, insurers aiming to digitize balance sheets, brokers facilitating transparent risk placement, and captives leveraging crypto-native self-insurance. The business model revolves around tokenizing insurance pools to enable seamless capital raising, trading, and governance, supported by smart contracts and licensed under Bermuda's regulatory framework. Revenue streams likely include platform fees, token-related services, and discretionary fund management. Partnerships with established entities like Aon, Coinbase Ventures, and others enhance credibility and ecosystem integration. The company demonstrates growth potential through innovative technology adoption and regulatory compliance, positioning itself as a leader in the emerging insurtech blockchain space.

Security posture

Nayms exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforcement, use of reCAPTCHA on forms, cookie consent with opt-in mechanisms, and integration of monitoring tools like LogRocket and Segment. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are not clearly documented in the HTML, representing an area for improvement. The lack of a published security policy or incident response plan limits transparency and preparedness communication. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file suggests an opportunity to formalize security engagement with the community. Overall, the platform balances security and usability well but should enhance documentation and proactive security disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Publish explicit security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Develop and publicly share a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure program and publish a security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Provide direct company contact emails and phone numbers for support and security inquiries to enhance credibility.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from external libraries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Nayms
Description
A single platform exposing capital markets to a variety of insurance pools. Pools are tokenised allowing investors to trade exposure. Payment rails and pool governance powered by smart contracts.
Key services
On-chain insurance marketplace, Tokenized insurance pools, Capital raising and trading, Smart contract powered payment rails and governance, Crypto-native captives, Nayms Discretionary Fund (NDF)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow CMS, Segment Analytics, LogRocket, Clearbit Scripts, Finsweet Cookie Consent, Google reCAPTCHA, Intercom, Basin Forms
Frameworks
Webflow, Lottie animations
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Cookie consent with opt-in mechanism
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-focused analytics and monitoring tools (LogRocket, Segment)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Segment, Plausible Analytics, LogRocket
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Segment Analytics, LogRocket, Clearbit Scripts, Plausible Analytics
Marketing tools
Intercom, Clearbit, Segment, LogRocket
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 multimedia
  2. Strong focus on regulated on-chain insurance marketplace
  3. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
  4. Clear privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed, only contact forms
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, raising questions about domain registration transparency
  7. Social media presence on LinkedIn, GitHub, Medium, Telegram, Twitter, and X
  8. No signs of malware, phishing, or suspicious domains
  9. Good SEO and accessibility practices observed
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Fonts, Lottie animations, and multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Segment, LogRocket, Clearbit, and Intercom. The site demonstrates fast loading times, excellent mobile optimization, and good accessibility features. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting appears to be via CDN providers associated with Webflow, ensuring reliable performance. The technical stack is modern and well-integrated, supporting a professional user experience. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and formalize security documentation 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 nayms.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 nayms.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.