Skip to main content

Security report for agents.lv

AGENTS.LV · Manufacturing · Latvia

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

AGENTS.LV is a Latvian-based company specializing in the sale, installation, and repair of gates, gate automation, access control systems, intercoms, and related security products. The company targets residential and commercial customers primarily in Latvia and the Baltic region, offering a broad catalog of products and services including automatic barriers, remote controls, alarm systems, and video surveillance. The website is well-structured and content-rich, providing detailed service descriptions and multiple contact options. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap, jQuery, and Google Analytics, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, it lacks visible security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which impacts its compliance posture. The WHOIS data is minimal and lacks registrar and creation date information, which slightly reduces transparency but does not strongly indicate illegitimacy. Overall, the site presents a professional business presence with room for improvement in security and privacy compliance.

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

10 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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 agents.lv

This scan found 27 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
67
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
55

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

The company operates in the manufacturing and retail sectors focused on gate and security automation products. Its business model combines product sales with installation and maintenance services, targeting local and regional markets. The presence of multiple contact channels and social media links suggests active customer engagement. The lack of detailed WHOIS data and absence of certifications or security policies may limit trust for some customers. The company appears to maintain a moderate market position with a focus on quality service and product variety. Growth potential exists through enhanced digital presence and compliance improvements.

Security posture

The website demonstrates basic security maturity with HTTPS usage and secure form handling via Google Forms. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is published, limiting transparency in security management. The lack of DNSSEC and minimal WHOIS data further reduce domain security assurance. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements to meet best practices and regulatory compliance, especially GDPR-related transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add and configure essential security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection).
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and provide security contact information.
  4. Enhance WHOIS data transparency by updating registrar and contact details if possible.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and improve SSL/TLS configuration to industry standards.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AGENTS.LV
Description
Company offers gates, gate automation, automatic barriers, remotes, automatic doors, access control systems, intercoms, code locks, repair, installation, manufacturing, and servicing.
Key services
Gate manufacturing and installation, Gate automation and repair, Automatic barriers and turnstiles, Intercom systems (audio and video), Access control systems and electronic locks, Remote controls for gates and barriers, Automatic doors, Alarm and video surveillance systems, Maintenance and repair services
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap CSS, jQuery, Chart.js, Modernizr, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (assumed from external scripts loaded via HTTPS)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Contact form uses Google Forms (secure backend)

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content in Latvian language.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  3. Contact information is clearly presented with multiple phone numbers and email.
  4. Use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates user tracking but no cookie consent mechanism found.
  5. No security policy or incident response info published.
  6. WHOIS data is minimal and lacks registrar and creation date info.
  7. Website uses modern frontend technologies but lacks advanced security headers.
  8. Content is business focused and safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and popular frontend stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for DOM manipulation, Chart.js for graphics, and Google Analytics/Tag Manager for tracking. The site loads external fonts from Google Fonts and scripts asynchronously to improve performance. The contact form is integrated with Google Forms, ensuring secure data collection. However, no CMS or backend platform is detected, suggesting a static or custom-built site. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization but accessibility features are basic. The lack of advanced SEO meta tags and structured data beyond minimal JSON-LD limits search engine optimization potential. Technical debt appears low but security and compliance gaps present risks to business continuity.
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 agents.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 agents.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.