A TurboC 4U · Finance · Latvia
High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.
A TurboC 4U is a Latvian insurance brokerage firm established in 1996, recognized as the oldest and one of the most experienced brokers in Latvia. The company offers a wide range of insurance brokerage and consulting services, including vehicle, travel, health, property, and liability insurance. It positions itself as a trusted intermediary collaborating with all Latvian insurance companies and emphasizes ethical business practices and client-centric service. The website content is primarily in Latvian with options for English and Russian, targeting local insurance clients. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and uses legacy JavaScript libraries such as jQuery 1.12.4. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking. The site lacks HTTPS, which is a significant security concern, and does not implement modern security headers or cookie consent mechanisms. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, and SEO practices are minimal but functional. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS and security headers exposes users to risks such as data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The outdated JavaScript libraries may also introduce vulnerabilities. No explicit security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, indicating a low maturity in security governance. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy, but cookie consent is missing. Overall, the website presents a moderate risk profile due to missing HTTPS and outdated technologies. The business credibility is supported by consistent branding and trust signals such as association membership and a clean legal record. Strategic improvements in security infrastructure and privacy compliance are recommended to enhance trust and protect client data.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
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
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 22 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention aa.lv, from OffSeq Breach.
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 aa.lv.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with aa.lv. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review aa.lv.