Skip to main content

Security report for adaskursi.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

54/100

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

The website adaskursi.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page designed to block automated or suspicious traffic. This page does not provide any direct business content or information about the underlying website. The challenge page uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for visitor tracking. The presence of outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) suggests legacy or placeholder content but no active business content is visible. Due to the access block, no detailed business or compliance information can be extracted. Technically, the site employs standard bot mitigation techniques but lacks visible modern security headers or HTTPS status information in the provided data. The WHOIS lookup failed due to query limits, preventing domain registration analysis. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found, nor any contact or company information. This limits trust and compliance assessment. Security posture is moderate given the CAPTCHA protection but is weakened by lack of visible security headers and outdated CMS indications. The site is safe in terms of content, with no adult or explicit material detected. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state preventing full analysis and business insights. Strategic recommendations include updating CMS platforms, implementing comprehensive security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and ensuring transparent contact information to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

6 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

    • 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

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

Keep watching adaskursi.lv

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
0
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
54

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Due to the security challenge page blocking access, no direct business intelligence can be gathered. The domain appears to be protected by BitNinja security services, indicating a concern for cyber threats or automated abuse. No company name, sector, or market positioning is discernible. The site likely targets general web visitors but no clear business model or services are presented. The use of Google Analytics suggests some level of visitor tracking and marketing awareness. Without access to the main site content, no further business intelligence is available.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by the presence of a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge page, which is a strong bot mitigation control. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security maturity. The outdated CMS meta tags raise concerns about potential vulnerabilities if those CMS versions are in use. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. The site uses HTTPS as implied by the reCAPTCHA and Google Analytics scripts loaded over HTTPS, but SSL configuration details are unavailable. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are absent. Overall, the site shows moderate security controls but significant room for improvement in compliance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Update CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  2. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Provide transparent contact information including security and incident response contacts.
  5. Regularly audit and monitor security posture and update bot mitigation techniques as needed.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page blocking direct access to the actual site content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page to validate visitors and prevent automated/bot access.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • Security challenge page to prevent automated access

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit exceeded error.
  3. No privacy policy, cookie policy, or terms of service found on the page.
  4. No contact information or business details are present.
  5. Page uses outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) which may indicate legacy or placeholder content.
  6. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for tracking.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS status information available from provided data.
  8. No adult or explicit content detected.
  9. Website content and business information cannot be fully analyzed due to access block.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags indicating Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and potentially insecure. The page is a security CAPTCHA challenge powered by BitNinja, integrating Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for bot mitigation and visitor tracking. The HTML is well-structured with responsive design elements but limited content. No modern JavaScript frameworks or advanced SEO tags are present. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics and CAPTCHA scripts. Mobile optimization is basic but functional. Accessibility features are minimal. The site lacks visible security headers and HTTPS enforcement details are not provided. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears minimal and focused on security challenge rather than content delivery.
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 adaskursi.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 adaskursi.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.