Skip to main content

Security report for agma.lv

AGMA Baltic · Energy · Latvia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

AGMA Baltic is a Latvia-based company specializing in energy, transport, and infrastructure sectors, offering project management, consulting, and engineering services primarily targeting business clients in the Baltic region. The website is built on WordPress with Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is accessible without any WAF or security challenge blocking content, but lacks comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, which are critical for compliance and trust. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but no advanced security headers detected. WHOIS data could not be retrieved, limiting domain legitimacy verification and trust assessment. Overall, the website presents a basic but functional online presence with room for improvement in security and 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

    • 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

  2. 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 agma.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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
45

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 energy sector with a B2B business model focused on consulting and project management. The market position appears regional with no indication of large scale or enterprise status. The website content is basic but relevant to the industry. No explicit partnerships or subsidiaries were identified. The lack of detailed business information and contact data on the website limits transparency and credibility. The use of WordPress and Yoast SEO suggests an intent to maintain SEO visibility but technical and compliance aspects need enhancement.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS were detected, which are important for mitigating common web attacks. No evidence of vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data was found in the HTML content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. Incident response and security contact information are not provided, reducing readiness for security incidents. Overall, the security posture is basic and requires improvements to meet modern standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish terms of service and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and readiness.
  4. Conduct regular security audits and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website content quality and business information to improve credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AGMA Baltic
Description
AGMA Baltic is a company providing services related to energy, transport, and infrastructure sectors, focusing on project management, consulting, and engineering solutions.
Key services
project management, consulting, engineering solutions
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Fonts, jQuery
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  2. Website is accessible with no WAF or blocking detected.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  5. Site uses WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin.
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected explicitly.
  8. Content is business-oriented and safe for general audiences.
  9. Site lacks detailed security and privacy compliance information.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a standard CMS-based infrastructure. The site loads external resources such as Google Fonts and jQuery from trusted CDNs. The HTML content is extensive and structured but lacks advanced accessibility features. Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of optimization or caching mechanisms. Mobile optimization appears good based on viewport meta tags and responsive CSS. SEO is supported by Yoast SEO plugin but could be improved with richer metadata and structured data. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is standard but could benefit from modernization and security hardening.
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 agma.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 agma.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.