Skip to main content

Security report for solarisbank.com

Solarisbank AG · Finance · Germany

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Solarisbank AG operates as a leading embedded finance platform in Europe, offering a comprehensive Banking-as-a-Service solution that enables businesses to integrate digital banking, payment, lending, and identification services via advanced RESTful APIs. The company holds a full German banking license, allowing it to operate seamlessly across EU countries. Solarisbank targets businesses seeking to embed financial services into their products, positioning itself as a neutral B2B2X partner with a strong market presence and trusted by major innovators such as Samsung and American Express. Technically, Solarisbank's website is built on modern frameworks including React and Gatsby, hosted on Netlify, and leverages Contentful as a CMS. The platform demonstrates excellent performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility, with a well-structured navigation and high-quality content. Analytics are implemented via piwik.pro, reflecting a moderate level of user tracking with good privacy compliance. From a security perspective, Solarisbank employs robust HTTP security headers including HSTS with preload, X-Frame-Options, and Content-Security-Policy, although the absence of enabled TLS protocols is a notable gap. The site lacks a cookie consent mechanism and a public vulnerability disclosure page, but provides clear contact channels for incident reporting and names key compliance officers, including a Money Laundering Reporting Officer. Overall, Solarisbank presents a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and technical maturity. Strategic recommendations include enabling modern TLS protocols, refining CSP policies, implementing cookie consent, and publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy to further enhance security posture and regulatory compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

3 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.

    • 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

  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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching solarisbank.com

This scan found 13 issues across 5 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
75
Security headers
80
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

Solarisbank AG is positioned as a major player in the embedded finance sector, leveraging its full banking license and technology platform to serve a wide range of industries including tech, wealth management, travel, and mobility. Its business model focuses on providing scalable, API-driven banking services that allow partners to offer branded financial products without competing for end customers. The company benefits from a strong partnership ecosystem and a clear focus on regulatory compliance and customer-centric innovation. Revenue streams likely include API usage fees, lending products, and payment processing. Growth indicators include a large client base with notable partners and continuous expansion of service offerings.

Security posture

Solarisbank demonstrates a mature security posture with comprehensive HTTP security headers and a strict content security policy, although the use of 'unsafe-inline' and 'unsafe-eval' in CSP reduces effectiveness. The lack of enabled TLS protocols is a critical issue that could expose communications to downgrade attacks or interception. The presence of named compliance and money laundering officers, along with accessible incident reporting channels, indicates a strong compliance culture. However, the absence of a public vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file and cookie consent mechanism suggests areas for improvement in transparency and GDPR compliance. Overall, the security posture is strong but could be enhanced by addressing TLS and consent gaps.

Recommendations

  1. Enable TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 protocols to secure communications and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Refine Content-Security-Policy to eliminate 'unsafe-inline' and 'unsafe-eval' directives for improved protection against XSS.
  3. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy transparency.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and improve security transparency.
  5. Maintain and promote named compliance and data protection officers to strengthen trust and regulatory adherence.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Solarisbank AG
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React and Gatsby frameworks, indicating a modern, component-based architecture optimized for performance and SEO. Hosting on Netlify provides scalability and CDN benefits. The use of Contentful as a CMS allows for flexible content management. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with fast load times and clear navigation. However, the absence of enabled TLS protocols is a significant technical risk. The integration of piwik.pro analytics shows a preference for privacy-conscious tracking solutions. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust with opportunities for security and privacy enhancements.
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 solarisbank.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 solarisbank.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.