Alianse Baltija NS · Other · Latvia
High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.
Aģentūra Baltija NS is a Latvian small business specializing in professional notarized translation and legal services. Established in 1994, the company offers a range of services including written translations, notarized and office-certified translations, legal and notarial services, apostille and document legalization, and remote document receipt. The website presents a professional image with clear service descriptions and client logos, targeting a general audience seeking legal and translation assistance in Latvia. Technically, the website is built on GravCMS, utilizing modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap 5, jQuery, and Font Awesome. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a good user experience with clear navigation. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics, indicating moderate user tracking. However, there is a lack of visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies, which are important for compliance and user trust. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS as implied by canonical URLs, but no detailed SSL or security header information is available. No forms or data collection mechanisms are present on the main page, reducing immediate risk. The absence of published security policies or incident response contacts suggests room for improvement in security posture and transparency. Overall, the website is functional and professional but lacks some critical compliance and security disclosures. The unavailability of WHOIS data limits domain trust assessment. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and incident response transparency are recommended to enhance trust and security.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Detected services: Google Analytics, Cloudflare
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information
What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 21 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention baltija.lv, from OffSeq Breach.
1 subdomain affected
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for baltija.lv.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with baltija.lv. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review baltija.lv.