Skip to main content

Security report for anneleszoo.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website anneleszoo.lv currently serves a security challenge page powered by BitNinja, requiring visitors to complete a CAPTCHA to proceed. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that blocks direct access until bot validation is passed. Due to this, no actual business content or services are accessible for analysis. The site references legacy CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 in meta tags, suggesting outdated or misconfigured infrastructure. Tracking scripts from Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are present, but no privacy or cookie policies are found, indicating poor privacy compliance. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details and reducing trustworthiness. Overall, the site is inaccessible for meaningful business or security assessment without passing the WAF challenge.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 anneleszoo.lv

This scan found 12 issues across 4 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
72
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
Average
83
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

No business information, contact details, or company identifiers are present on the accessible page. The site does not provide privacy policies, terms of service, or contact information, limiting insights into market positioning or business model. The presence of multiple CMS meta tags may indicate a legacy or transitional website. No partnerships or related domains are identified. The lack of accessible content and contact data suggests minimal digital maturity and limited online presence.

Security posture

The site employs BitNinja WAF with CAPTCHA challenge to mitigate automated malicious traffic, which is a positive security control. However, the absence of HTTPS enforcement details, security headers, and updated CMS versions indicates potential vulnerabilities. The site lacks visible privacy and security policies, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The security posture is limited by the inability to access the actual site content and lack of transparency in domain registration data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Update CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Provide accessible contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Website content is blocked by BitNinja security challenge requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA v2
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
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 is currently inaccessible due to BitNinja WAF CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No meaningful business content or contact information is available on the landing page.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limit error, no registrar or registrant info extracted.
  4. Site uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, indicating possible legacy or misconfigured platform.
  5. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are present, indicating tracking but no privacy disclosures found.
  6. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  7. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  8. Site content is minimal and purely a security validation page.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) which are outdated and potentially insecure. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are integrated for tracking purposes. The site is protected by BitNinja WAF, which blocks access until CAPTCHA validation is completed. No information about hosting provider or performance metrics is available. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to the minimal content presented. SEO optimization is poor as the page is a security challenge with no meaningful content or metadata for search engines.
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 anneleszoo.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 anneleszoo.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.