Skip to main content

Security report for asmensunko.lv

SIA “Asmens & Ko” · Transportation · Latvia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SIA “Asmens & Ko” is a Latvian-based freight transportation and logistics company serving clients primarily in the Baltic, Central European, and CIS regions. With over 15 years of experience, the company offers professional freight forwarding, logistics, and cargo transportation services. The website is built on WordPress and employs common web technologies such as jQuery, Modernizr, and Google Analytics for tracking. The site is accessible, mobile responsive to a basic degree, and provides clear contact information including phone, email, and physical address. However, it lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which impacts compliance and user trust. From a security perspective, the website uses HTTPS with a good SSL configuration but does not implement common security headers, which could improve protection against common web threats. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of WHOIS data due to query limits restricts full domain legitimacy verification, but the site content and contact details align with a legitimate small logistics business. Overall, the website demonstrates a moderate level of digital maturity with room for improvement in privacy compliance, security hardening, and content quality. Strategic enhancements in these areas would strengthen trust and regulatory adherence.

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

9 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

  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 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 asmensunko.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
62
Security headers
50
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
62

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 transportation sector focusing on freight and logistics services across Europe and CIS countries. Its business model centers on providing tailored freight forwarding and logistics solutions to regional businesses. The website targets business customers requiring cargo transport and logistics support. The company appears to be a small-sized entity with a localized market presence in Latvia and neighboring regions. The lack of social media presence and limited online marketing tools suggests a traditional business approach. The partnership ecosystem is not evident from the website, and no subsidiaries or parent companies are mentioned. The company’s competitive advantage lies in its 15+ years of experience and regional specialization.

Security posture

The website’s security posture is moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented ensuring encrypted communication. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces protection against common web attacks like clickjacking and MIME sniffing. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries was found. The site lacks a published security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are important for transparency and trust. The use of outdated WordPress version 4.3.1 (from meta tag) may pose security risks if not updated. Overall, the site would benefit from improved security best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against web attacks.
  3. Update WordPress core and all plugins/themes to the latest versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  4. Introduce a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance mobile responsiveness and accessibility features to improve user experience and SEO.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
SIA “Asmens & Ko”
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SIA “Asmens & Ko”
Description
SIA “Asmens & Ko” provides freight transportation and logistics services in Europe and CIS countries with over 15 years of experience.
Key services
Freight transportation in Europe, Freight transportation in CIS countries, Logistics services, Freight forwarding
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, jQuery, Modernizr, Slick Carousel, Blazy (lazy loading), RequireJS
Frameworks
WordPress 4.3.1
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Content is primarily in Latvian with language switcher for Russian and English
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on homepage
  4. Contact information is clearly provided in footer including address, phone, and email
  5. Website uses WordPress CMS with several common JS libraries
  6. No social media links detected
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. No explicit security headers detected in provided data
  9. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are present
  10. No broken links or error pages detected in content
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 4.3.1, which is an outdated version and may expose the site to security vulnerabilities. The tech stack includes jQuery, Modernizr, Slick Carousel, Blazy for lazy loading, and RequireJS for module loading. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for analytics and marketing tracking. The site loads CSS and JS assets from its own domain and Google Fonts from fonts.googleapis.com. Performance is moderate with some lazy loading implemented, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO is basic with meta tags and Open Graph tags present but no structured data (JSON-LD) found. Hosting provider details are not available from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but could benefit from modernization and security hardening.
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 asmensunko.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 asmensunko.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.