Skip to main content

Security report for bula.lv

Brigita Bula arhitekti · Real Estate · Latvia

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

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Brigita Bula arhitekti is a small architecture firm based in Latvia, specializing in architectural design showcased through their portfolio website. The site prominently features their award-winning Salt house project, which has received national recognition and international publicity. The business targets architecture enthusiasts, potential clients, and industry professionals, positioning itself as a niche player with a focus on quality design and competitions. Technically, the website is built on the Berta.me CMS platform using standard web technologies such as HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. The site is moderately optimized for mobile devices and offers a good user experience with clear navigation and relevant content. However, the technical infrastructure lacks advanced security features such as security headers and HTTPS verification is unknown due to lack of header data. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, indicating a gap in compliance with data protection regulations. Overall, the security posture is basic with room for improvement in SSL configuration, security headers, and incident response readiness. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting the ability to fully verify domain legitimacy and registration details. The website content is professional and safe, with no adult or questionable material detected.

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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 bula.lv

This scan found 28 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
42
Security headers
20
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
40
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
  • 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 firm operates primarily in the real estate and architectural design sector, leveraging its portfolio and award recognition to attract clients and industry attention. The business model centers on showcasing completed projects and participating in competitions and exhibitions. The website serves as a digital brochure rather than a transactional platform, with no forms or e-commerce features detected. The presence of external links to reputable architecture and design platforms enhances credibility and visibility. The company maintains clear contact information but lacks social media integration, which could limit broader market reach. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the website content. The firm appears to be a small, specialized entity with a focused market niche.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with no detected HTTPS enforcement or security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No forms or user input fields reduce the attack surface, but the absence of security best practices and incident response contacts is a concern. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, minimizing privacy risks but also indicating limited user behavior insights. The lack of privacy and cookie policies suggests non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Overall, the site is low risk from a technical attack perspective but would benefit from implementing standard security controls and compliance documentation to enhance trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and ensure all site content is served securely.
  2. Add standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  4. Establish a security incident response contact channel such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Improve accessibility features and conduct an audit to enhance user experience for all visitors.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Brigita Bula arhitekti
Description
Portfolio website showcasing architectural projects by Brigita Bula architects, including award-winning Salt house in Pāvilosta.
Key services
Architectural design, Competitions, Exhibitions
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Frameworks
Berta.me CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a portfolio for Brigita Bula architects with focus on award-winning Salt house project.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on site.
  3. Contact information including email, phone, and physical address clearly provided.
  4. No forms detected on the site for data collection.
  5. No social media links found.
  6. Site built using Berta.me CMS with custom CSS and JavaScript.
  7. No security headers or advanced security features detected.
  8. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  9. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
  10. Content is professional, safe, and targeted at general audience interested in architecture.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Berta.me CMS platform, utilizing standard front-end technologies including HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. The site includes responsive design elements for mobile optimization and uses a slideshow gallery for project images. Performance appears moderate with no heavy external dependencies or tracking scripts. SEO is basic with meta tags and Open Graph data present but no advanced optimization detected. The absence of analytics and marketing tools indicates minimal data collection and tracking. Technical debt appears low but the lack of security headers and HTTPS verification suggests areas for modernization and risk mitigation.
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 bula.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 bula.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.