Skip to main content

Security report for balticprint.lv

BALTICPRINT.lv · Other · Latvia

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 2 other checks.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

BALTICPRINT.lv is a Latvian printing service provider specializing in digital and large format printing, operating since 2011. The company offers a wide range of printing services including packaging production, stickers, postcards, calendars, brochures, and business cards. Their website reflects a small business with a professional online presence, targeting businesses and organizations requiring printing solutions. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS with popular plugins for sliders, forms, and GDPR compliance, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit incident response information. Overall, the website is safe, professional, and compliant with GDPR, though WHOIS data is unavailable, limiting full domain trust verification.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

11 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

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  3. 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 balticprint.lv

This scan found 27 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
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
40

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 · found on this site
  • 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 positions itself as a reliable local printing service with a focus on quality and speed, leveraging investments in modern equipment and skilled staff. Their business model is service-oriented, catering primarily to local businesses needing various printing products. The website content and navigation are clear and consistent, supporting customer engagement. Absence of social media links and certifications suggests a focus on direct client relationships rather than broad digital marketing. The presence of a cookie consent mechanism and privacy policy indicates awareness of regulatory requirements. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the website data.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA for form security, demonstrating basic security hygiene. However, it lacks several recommended security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could enhance protection against common web attacks. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are provided, which could be a gap in transparency and preparedness. The use of popular WordPress plugins necessitates regular updates to mitigate vulnerabilities. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with additional measures and documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen web security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to reduce vulnerability risks.
  4. Consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  5. Enhance SEO and accessibility features to improve user experience and search engine ranking.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BALTICPRINT.lv
Description
Kopš 2011. gada nemitīgi strādājam, lai nodrošinātu mūsu klientiem augstas kvalitātes drukas pakalpojumus. Mūsu ieguldījumi jaunās iekārtās ļauj mums būt konkurētspējīgiem tirgū un piedāvāt ātras un augstas kvalitātes izdrukas gan digitālajā, gan lielformāta drukā. Inovatīvi un efektīvi darbinieki nodrošina elastīgu un ātru pasūtījumu izpildi, kas ļauj mums attīstīties un pieaistīt jaunus klientus.
Key services
Digital printing, Large format printing, Packaging production, Stickers and labels, Postcards and invitations, Calendars, Brochures and catalogs, Business cards
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, LayerSlider, Slider Revolution, Contact Form 7, Complianz GDPR plugin
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Complianz GDPR Cookie Consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

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. Clear contact information including email, phone, and physical address provided.
  4. Cookie consent banner present and GDPR compliance indicated.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  6. No terms of service page detected.
  7. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for sliders, forms, and GDPR compliance.
  8. No social media links detected in the provided HTML content.
  9. No certifications or security frameworks mentioned.
  10. Content is business-focused, safe, and appropriate for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using PHP and jQuery, with plugins such as LayerSlider, Slider Revolution, Contact Form 7, and Complianz GDPR for cookie management. The site loads external resources from Google Fonts and Google reCAPTCHA, indicating reliance on third-party services. Performance is moderate with responsive design and mobile optimization present. Accessibility features are basic, with room for improvement. SEO is supported by meta tags and structured navigation but lacks advanced optimization. The technical stack is standard for small business websites, balancing functionality and ease of maintenance.
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 balticprint.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 balticprint.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.