Skip to main content

Security report for cblgroup.com

Citadele Group · Finance · Latvia

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

Citadele Group operates as a major financial services provider in the Baltic region, offering a broad range of services including banking, capital management, life insurance, pension plans, leasing, and factoring. The website targets private individuals and businesses across Latvia and neighboring Baltic countries, positioning itself as a modern financial platform. The content is professionally structured and presented primarily in Latvian with multilingual support, reflecting a regional focus. Financial reports and press releases are prominently featured, indicating transparency and investor engagement. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with Google Tag Manager integrated for analytics and marketing purposes. The site is mobile-optimized and demonstrates good SEO practices, although accessibility features could be enhanced. The SSL configuration is robust, and forms include CSRF protection, indicating attention to security best practices. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and provides a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR. However, there is a lack of explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure information, which are important for a financial institution. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable concern, potentially indicating domain registration issues or privacy protection that is not documented. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy front for Citadele Group, but the missing WHOIS data and lack of direct contact information slightly reduce business credibility. Strategic improvements in security transparency and contact availability would enhance trust and compliance posture.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of cblgroup.com. View the latest report
3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
4of 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

3 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.

    • 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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

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

Keep watching cblgroup.com

This scan found 7 issues across 3 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
77
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
81
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • Email security: did not complete in this scan.
  • DNS health: 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention cblgroup.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for cblgroup.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Citadele Group is positioned as a leading financial institution in the Baltic states, serving both private and corporate clients. Its business model revolves around providing comprehensive financial services including banking, asset management, insurance, and leasing. The company leverages digital channels to engage customers and investors, as evidenced by detailed financial disclosures and press communications. The multilingual website supports regional market penetration. The absence of WHOIS data is unusual for a company of this scale and should be investigated to ensure domain ownership legitimacy. The company appears to maintain a strong brand presence and investor relations focus, which supports growth and market confidence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with enforced HTTPS, secure form handling via CSRF tokens, and GDPR-compliant cookie consent. However, the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates gaps in security transparency and readiness. No security headers beyond SSL were detected, suggesting room for improvement in defense-in-depth. The missing WHOIS data raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy, which could pose risks if the domain is not properly controlled. Overall, the security maturity is adequate but could be enhanced by formalizing policies and improving communication channels for security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure or bug bounty program to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS registration data to ensure domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Citadele Group
Description
Citadeles Grupa sniedz mūsdienīgus finanšu pakalpojumus Baltijas privātpersonām un uzņēmumiem.
Key services
finanšu pakalpojumi, kapitāla pārvaldīšana, dzīvības apdrošināšana, pensiju plāni, līzings, faktoringa pakalpojumi
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF tokens in forms
  • Cookie consent mechanism

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

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 challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented in Latvian with multi-language support.
  3. Strong cookie consent and privacy policy presence indicating GDPR compliance.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the main page.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual for a financial institution.
  6. Uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking.
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page.
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response contact information found.
  9. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL configuration.
  10. Forms use CSRF tokens indicating secure form handling.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with Google Tag Manager integrated for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile responsive and optimized for SEO with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Forms include CSRF tokens, indicating secure data submission practices. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected. Performance is moderate with no obvious issues, but accessibility features are basic and could be improved. The absence of structured data (JSON-LD) limits SEO potential. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from modernization in accessibility and security header implementation.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 73/100Medium25 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with cblgroup.com. 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 cblgroup.com.

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.