Skip to main content

Security report for riskcap.com

RiskCap International Ltd · Finance · Malta

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

38/100

Risk levelHigh

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

RiskCap International Ltd is a specialized provider of risk management, regulatory compliance, and governance services tailored for the financial services industry. The company emphasizes a strong governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) culture and serves a global clientele across various financial sectors. Their key offerings include risk management, compliance and anti-money laundering (AML), regulatory reporting, and governance solutions. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting financial institutions seeking expert advisory and compliance support. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using the Divi theme, indicating a modern but standard CMS infrastructure with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site presents a credible business presence but would benefit from enhanced security and compliance transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

  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. 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 riskcap.com

This scan found 20 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
0
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
38

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

RiskCap positions itself as a niche service provider in the financial risk and compliance domain, leveraging expert teams to deliver customized solutions. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on long-term partnerships with clients worldwide. The presence of multiple office locations in Malta, London, and Norway, along with partner references to AKJ Group, suggests a collaborative ecosystem. The website content and structure support a professional image but lack detailed business metrics or certifications. The absence of privacy and security policies may impact trust with privacy-conscious clients. The company appears to be small-sized with a focused market segment and moderate digital maturity.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options, which are important for mitigating common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are published, indicating limited transparency in security practices. No forms are present on the homepage, reducing attack surface, but also limiting direct user data collection. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS reduces transparency but is common for this business type. Overall, the security posture is basic and would benefit from improvements in policy publication, header implementation, and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance web security.
  3. Create and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Add incident response contact information, including security or abuse email addresses, to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO optimization to improve user experience and search visibility.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
RiskCap International Ltd
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
RiskCap International Ltd
Description
RiskCap International Ltd provides customised risk management, regulatory compliance, and governance solutions to the financial services industry through a team of experts with diverse backgrounds. The company is committed to innovative thinking and a strong GRC culture, working in long-term partnership with clients of all sizes and segments of the financial services industry from around the world.
Key services
Risk Management, Compliance & AML, Regulatory Reporting, Governance
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, jQuery
Frameworks
Divi Builder
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed using WordPress and Divi theme.
  2. Content focuses on risk management and compliance services for financial industry.
  3. Contact information is clearly provided in footer with multiple office locations.
  4. No privacy or cookie policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  5. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
  7. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
  8. No security headers detected in provided data; SSL is enabled but configuration details unknown.
  9. No forms detected on homepage; contact likely via email or phone.
  10. Social media presence includes LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube links for RiskCap and AKJ Group.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Divi theme and builder, a popular and flexible platform for business sites. The tech stack includes jQuery and custom Divi scripts. Performance is moderate with deferred CSS loading and standard optimization. Mobile responsiveness is good, but accessibility features are basic. No advanced analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. The site lacks advanced security configurations such as security headers and comprehensive privacy mechanisms. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist in security and compliance implementations.
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 riskcap.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 riskcap.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.