Skip to main content

Security report for bitcoinfoundation.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

54/100

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

The website bitcoinfoundation.lv is currently inaccessible as a normal content site and instead presents a security challenge page powered by BitNinja. This page requires visitors to complete a CAPTCHA to verify they are not automated bots before accessing the requested content. Due to this security mechanism, no business or organizational information is available on the page, and the WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits. The site uses outdated CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, indicating legacy or misconfigured platform usage. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The security posture is limited by the lack of visible security headers and absence of privacy or cookie policies. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state, limiting the ability to perform a full analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

6 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

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

Keep watching bitcoinfoundation.lv

This scan found 13 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. See sample alerts.

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
0
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
54

Not counted

  • Security headers: 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 intelligence data is available from the site content due to the security challenge page blocking access. There is no visible company name, contact information, or business description. The domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, preventing verification of registrant details or domain age. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja's security services, which may indicate a focus on security but also limits transparency. No partnerships or related domains are identified from the content.

Security posture

The site employs BitNinja's WAF and CAPTCHA challenge to mitigate automated and malicious traffic, which is a positive security control. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS reduces the overall security posture. The use of outdated CMS versions may expose the site to vulnerabilities if not properly patched. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates poor compliance with data protection regulations. WHOIS data unavailability further reduces trust and transparency. The security score is moderate but limited by these factors.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Update CMS platforms to supported and secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and domain registration details are transparent to improve trust.
  5. Enhance website content accessibility by reducing reliance on CAPTCHA challenges for legitimate users.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The page is a security challenge page by BitNinja requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed, indicating WAF or security filtering is active. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a security challenge page requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. It does not provide business or organizational information.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
40/100
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
basic
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a CAPTCHA security challenge by BitNinja.
  2. No business or organizational information is presented on the page.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limit error, preventing domain legitimacy verification.
  4. The site uses outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which may indicate legacy or misconfigured platform.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No contact information or security policies are provided.
  7. External scripts include Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking.
  8. The page is minimal and designed solely for bot mitigation, not for user engagement.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags indicating Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and potentially insecure. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and analytics. Google reCAPTCHA v2 is implemented for bot mitigation. The page is minimalistic and primarily serves as a security checkpoint rather than a content delivery platform. Performance is moderate given the minimal content, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meaningful content and meta tags. The hosting provider is not identified from the data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional for security purposes but lacks modern CMS and content delivery best practices.
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 bitcoinfoundation.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 bitcoinfoundation.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.