Skip to main content

Security report for agrochema.lt

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website agrochema.lt is currently inaccessible in a meaningful way due to a security challenge or WAF protection that blocks normal content access. The page served is a minimal CAPTCHA-like test with obfuscated JavaScript, preventing automated access and scraping. No business information, contact details, or policies are visible, which severely limits the ability to assess the company or its services. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, further reducing transparency. Technically, the site lacks visible modern web technologies, SEO, or accessibility features. Security posture is weak with no visible HTTPS or security headers. Overall, the site appears to be either under protection or misconfigured, resulting in a poor user and security experience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

5 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching agrochema.lt

This scan found 17 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
82
Security headers
80
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
75

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention agrochema.lt, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
9
Employees
0
Customers
4
Third parties
5
Weak passwords
33%

1 subdomain affected

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 agrochema.lt.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 lack of accessible content and absence of business-related information, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. There are no visible indications of company name, services, market positioning, or partnerships. The domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, and no contact or social media links are present. This suggests either a new or protected domain or a site under maintenance or attack mitigation.

Security posture

The security posture is currently weak from an external perspective. The presence of a WAF or security challenge indicates some level of protection, but the lack of HTTPS confirmation, absence of security headers, and obfuscated scripts raise concerns. No incident response or security policy information is available. The site does not provide privacy or cookie policies, which is a compliance gap. The security score is low due to these factors and the inability to fully analyze the site.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and confirm HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure communications.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Provide visible and verified contact information including emails and phone numbers.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS.
  5. Improve website accessibility and mobile optimization to enhance user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The page content indicates a security challenge or WAF protection blocking normal access, with obfuscated JavaScript and a CAPTCHA-like test. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security mechanism or WAF challenge
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is present
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No visible forms except a CAPTCHA test to prove human visitor
  5. No external links or social media links detected
  6. Obfuscated JavaScript present, possibly for anti-bot or anti-scraping
  7. No WHOIS data available due to query limit exceeded
  8. No SSL/HTTPS information available from provided data
  9. Page content is minimal and does not represent a functional website
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves a minimal HTML page with obfuscated JavaScript likely intended as a bot mitigation or CAPTCHA challenge. No modern frameworks, CMS, or analytics tools are detectable. The page lacks meta tags, structured data, or SEO optimizations. Performance and mobile responsiveness cannot be properly assessed due to the blocked content. The technical implementation is minimal and likely temporary or protective in nature.
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 agrochema.lt. 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 agrochema.lt.

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.