Skip to main content

Security report for beautyjar.eu

BeautyJar · Retail · Latvia

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

BeautyJar is an e-commerce retailer specializing in cosmetics, targeting a general audience primarily in Latvia and surrounding European markets. The website is built on WordPress with WooCommerce, leveraging common plugins such as Contact Form 7 and Google reCAPTCHA to enhance user interaction and security. The site demonstrates a moderate level of digital maturity with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and security headers present, though the absence of a privacy policy and terms of service pages indicates room for compliance improvement. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced transparency and formalized security policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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 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';…

  2. 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

  3. Network security

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

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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

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

Keep watching beautyjar.eu

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
100
Average
58

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 retail sector focusing on cosmetics, with sister sites targeting Latvian, Russian, and German-speaking customers, indicating a regional multi-lingual strategy. The business model is straightforward e-commerce retail, with revenue generated through online sales of beauty products. The lack of explicit contact emails or phone numbers suggests a reliance on web forms for customer interaction. The site’s branding is consistent and professional, supporting a moderate market position. No certifications or advanced trust signals were detected, which could be an area for growth to enhance customer confidence.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a good SSL configuration and includes security headers such as HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and Content-Security-Policy, which are positive indicators. Google reCAPTCHA is used to protect forms from spam and abuse. However, the absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information limits transparency and preparedness for security incidents. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Compliance with GDPR is partially indicated by the cookie consent mechanism, but the missing privacy policy is a compliance gap.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add a terms of service page to clarify user rights and obligations.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy and security incident response contacts.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.
  5. Consider adding explicit company contact emails and phone numbers for better customer support and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BeautyJar
Description
BeautyJar is an e-commerce retailer specializing in cosmetics and beauty products, aiming to make people happy through their offerings.
Key services
cosmetics sales, online shopping
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, WooCommerce, Contact Form 7, Google reCAPTCHA, YITH WooCommerce Badges
Frameworks
WooCommerce Blocks
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Cookie consent implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress WooCommerce e-commerce site focused on cosmetics.
  2. Cookie consent is implemented, but privacy policy and terms of service pages are missing or not detected.
  3. Contact information is limited to contact forms; no explicit emails or phone numbers found in the HTML.
  4. Security best practices like HTTPS and reCAPTCHA are in place.
  5. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  6. No adult or explicit content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
  7. Technical implementation is standard for WordPress e-commerce sites.
  8. SEO and mobile optimization are adequate.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a standard WordPress CMS with WooCommerce for e-commerce functionality. It uses modern web technologies and plugins such as Contact Form 7 and Google reCAPTCHA. The site loads external resources from reputable domains like Google Fonts and Google reCAPTCHA. Performance is moderate with no critical errors detected in the HTML. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO meta tags are properly configured. The site could benefit from improved accessibility and more comprehensive technical documentation or structured data to enhance search engine understanding.
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 beautyjar.eu. 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 beautyjar.eu.

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.