Skip to main content

Security report for akmebuve.lv

SIA “Akme Būve“ · Real Estate · 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

SIA “Akme Būve“ is a Latvian full-cycle construction company established in 2007, specializing in residential buildings, village developments, and individual construction projects. The company targets residential property buyers and developers within Latvia, offering competitive pricing and quality construction services. The website is professionally designed using WordPress CMS with multilingual support in Latvian and Russian, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Technical infrastructure includes common WordPress plugins such as WPBakery Page Builder, Contact Form 7, and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for form security. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and reCAPTCHA implemented, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain trust analysis, but the website content and business information appear consistent and legitimate. Overall, the website presents a moderate risk profile with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security best practices.

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 akmebuve.lv

This scan found 26 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 real estate and construction sector, focusing on residential projects in Latvia. Its business model revolves around providing full-cycle construction services, positioning itself as an established local player with over a decade of experience. The website's multilingual capability suggests an intent to serve both Latvian and Russian-speaking clients. Contact information is clearly provided, including phone numbers and a Facebook page, enhancing customer accessibility. However, the lack of detailed privacy and security policies may impact customer trust. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the website content. The company appears to maintain a straightforward business approach targeting local residential construction markets.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and Google reCAPTCHA v3, which are positive security measures. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which could improve protection against common web attacks. The absence of a privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, limiting transparency in security management. The website does not expose sensitive data or use outdated libraries based on the provided data. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could benefit from enhanced policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit GDPR compliance and user consent mechanisms.
  2. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen web security.
  3. Publish a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities and maintain security hygiene.
  5. Enhance website accessibility and SEO by adding ARIA roles and structured data where appropriate.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SIA “Akme Būve“
Description
Akme Būve is a full-cycle construction company founded in 2007 specializing in high-quality residential buildings, villages, and individual projects at competitive prices.
Key services
Residential building construction, Village development, Individual project construction
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 5.4.16, WPBakery Page Builder, Contact Form 7, WP Multilang, Google reCAPTCHA v3, FontAwesome, Material Icons
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
PHP (implied by WordPress), Apache or Nginx (not explicitly detected)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented on forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
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 no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error; no registrar or domain age info.
  3. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  4. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found.
  5. Contact information includes two Latvian phone numbers and a Facebook page link.
  6. No email addresses explicitly found in the HTML content.
  7. Website content is in Latvian and Russian (language switcher present).
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  9. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  10. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL (implied by https URLs).
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 5.4.16 with WPBakery Page Builder and Contact Form 7 plugins, indicating a common and well-supported CMS platform. Google reCAPTCHA v3 is integrated for spam protection on forms. The site uses Google Fonts and FontAwesome for styling and icons. The website is responsive and optimized for mobile devices with good navigation clarity. Performance is moderate, with no explicit hosting provider identified. The absence of advanced security headers and privacy compliance features suggests technical debt in security and compliance areas. Overall, the technical infrastructure is standard for a small business website but could be modernized and hardened for better security and compliance.
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 akmebuve.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 akmebuve.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.