Skip to main content

Security report for animalslife.net

Animals life · Non-profit · Latvia

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Animals Life NET is a small non-profit organization based in Latvia that operates a global platform for live streaming animal shelters to support animal welfare. The website facilitates donations and purchases of supplies for shelters worldwide, targeting animal lovers and donors. The platform is technically built on WordPress with integrations for live chat, push notifications, and analytics. While the site is professionally designed and content-rich, some security best practices such as advanced headers and cookie consent are missing. The domain registration data is consistent with the business claims, supporting legitimacy. Overall, the site presents a trustworthy and functional platform for its niche audience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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. 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 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 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

  4. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Weak SPF Policy

      SPF record has permissive policy allowing any server to send email

      What to do: Use -all or ~all qualifier for better email security

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

Keep watching animalslife.net

This scan found 22 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
65
Security headers
60
Email security
80
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
71

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 project occupies a niche in the animal welfare sector by combining live streaming technology with e-commerce and fundraising. Its competitive advantage lies in transparency and engagement through live video feeds from shelters. Revenue streams likely include donations and sales of shelter supplies. The partnership with BalticLiveCam suggests a technical and operational collaboration. The target audience includes animal lovers, volunteers, and donors globally. Growth indicators include multiple shelter participants and active news updates. Strategic observations highlight the importance of improving security and privacy compliance to enhance trust.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and uses reputable DNS and registrar services, which are positive security indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC, lack of advanced security headers like Content Security Policy, and an outdated WordPress version present moderate risks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which limits transparency. The login and registration forms include client-side validation but no visible advanced protections. Overall, the security posture is moderate with room for improvement to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and comply with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security.
  2. Implement Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options headers to harden the site against common attacks.
  3. Update WordPress and all plugins to the latest versions to patch known vulnerabilities.
  4. Add a clear cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  5. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
SIA "BalticLiveCam"
Registration number
40103894124
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Animals life
Description
Animals Life NET is a shelter support project with live stream videos of dog and cat webcams that helps animal welfare organizations, rescues and sanctuaries. The project unites animal shelters and welfare organizations globally, allowing visitors to buy necessary products or contribute to fundraising.
Key services
Live streaming animal shelters, Online purchase of shelter supplies, Fundraising for veterinary and shelter services, Information and news about shelters
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Maps API, Facebook SDK, Google Analytics, Yandex Metrika, OneSignal Push Notifications, Tawk.to live chat, WP PRO Advertising System
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure login forms with validation
  • Use of third-party security and analytics scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Yandex Metrika, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google AdSense, AdOcean
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika
Marketing tools
OneSignal Push Notifications, Tawk.to live chat
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a non-profit animal welfare project with live streaming and donation features.
  2. Content is rich with multiple shelter participants and live streams.
  3. Uses multiple third-party services for analytics, advertising, and user engagement.
  4. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  5. Security headers could be improved.
  6. No explicit cookie consent mechanism found.
  7. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and consistent registration.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a mature WordPress CMS with common plugins for advertising, analytics, and user engagement. The tech stack includes jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Maps API, Facebook SDK, OneSignal for push notifications, and Tawk.to for live chat. Performance is moderate with some external ad scripts that may impact load times. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design and language selection. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. SEO is supported by Yoast plugin and proper meta tags. Technical debt is indicated by the outdated WordPress version and missing security headers. Modernization opportunities include upgrading CMS and enhancing security configurations.
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 animalslife.net. 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 animalslife.net.

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.