Skip to main content

Security report for alphabaltic.lv

Alpha agency · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Alpha agency operates a website at alphabaltic.com, presenting itself as a digital or marketing agency. The domain is mature, registered since 2008, and uses Cloudflare DNS services. The website includes multiple third-party marketing and analytics scripts such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Google Tag Manager, indicating a focus on digital marketing and user tracking. Cookie consent is managed via Cookiebot, demonstrating some privacy compliance efforts. However, the website lacks visible privacy policy, terms of service, contact information, and security policy pages, which are critical for trust and compliance. The technical infrastructure is moderate, with HTTPS enabled and clientTransferProhibited domain status, but DNSSEC is not enabled, representing a security gap. Overall, the website's content quality and business information are basic, with limited textual content and no structured data detected. The security posture is fair but could be improved with additional headers and policies. The absence of contact details and privacy documentation reduces the site's credibility and compliance standing.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching alphabaltic.lv

This scan found 24 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
88
Average
53

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 website appears to represent a small digital agency named Alpha agency, targeting clients interested in marketing or digital services. The lack of detailed business descriptions, contact information, or certifications limits insight into its market positioning or competitive advantages. The use of multiple tracking and advertising tools suggests a business model reliant on digital marketing services. The domain age supports a stable presence, but the minimal content and lack of transparency may hinder growth and trust. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the data. The company likely serves a niche or local market given the small size and limited online footprint.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and Cloudflare DNS, which are positive security indicators. The domain status clientTransferProhibited prevents unauthorized transfers, enhancing domain security. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose the domain to DNS spoofing attacks. No security headers were detected in the provided content, and there is no published security policy or incident response contact information. The presence of multiple third-party tracking scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. Cookie consent is implemented, but the absence of a privacy policy and terms of service is a compliance gap. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires improvements in DNS security, header implementation, and transparency to meet best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to enhance compliance and user trust.
  3. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security incident reporting.
  5. Implement a security policy and incident response contact channels (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails) to improve transparency and readiness.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Alpha agency
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML5, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Cookiebot, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Vue.js (indicated by vue_lang variable)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses multiple third-party tracking and marketing scripts
  2. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot
  3. No visible privacy policy or terms of service pages found
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the HTML content
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts published
  7. Website content is minimal with empty meta description and keywords
  8. No structured data (JSON-LD) detected in the HTML
  9. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet
  10. Website uses Cloudflare DNS but no WAF challenge detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including JavaScript, CSS, and HTML5, with Vue.js indicated by a language variable. It integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. Hosting appears to be managed via Cloudflare DNS with domain registration through Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. The site is mobile optimized and loads with moderate performance. However, SEO optimization is basic with empty meta description and keywords. Accessibility features are minimal. No CMS or backend platform was identified from the HTML content. The site lacks structured data (JSON-LD) which could improve search engine visibility. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but could benefit from SEO and accessibility enhancements.
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 alphabaltic.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 alphabaltic.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.