Skip to main content

Security report for darbadrosiba.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website darbadrosiba.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to block automated or suspicious visitors. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that requires human verification before granting access. Due to this blocking mechanism, the actual business content is inaccessible, limiting the ability to analyze the company's services, market position, or business model. The page uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) references in metadata, which may indicate legacy infrastructure or misconfiguration. Technically, the site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for visitor tracking and employs Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. However, no modern security headers or HTTPS configuration details were available, and no privacy or cookie policies were found, indicating gaps in compliance and security best practices. The lack of contact information or business details further reduces trust and credibility. From a security perspective, the presence of a BitNinja challenge is a positive indicator of active protection against automated threats, but the outdated CMS versions and missing security headers suggest potential vulnerabilities. The absence of WHOIS data due to query limits prevents verification of domain legitimacy or registrant details. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for full analysis due to the WAF challenge, resulting in a low AI score and limited insights. Strategic recommendations include upgrading CMS platforms, implementing comprehensive security headers, enforcing HTTPS, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear business contact information to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

10 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

  2. 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 darbadrosiba.lv

This scan found 24 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. 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
62
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
59

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

Due to the website being blocked by a security CAPTCHA, no direct business information or market positioning can be determined. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja, a security service, but no company name, sector, or business model details are available. The metadata references Joomla and WordPress CMS, but these are outdated versions, suggesting legacy systems or a placeholder page. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses were found. The target audience is general website visitors who must pass bot verification. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the data.

Security posture

The website employs BitNinja's security challenge page with Google reCAPTCHA v2 to mitigate automated bot access, which is a strong security control. However, the lack of visible security headers (e.g., CSP, HSTS), no HTTPS configuration details, and outdated CMS versions indicate potential security weaknesses. No privacy or cookie policies are present, which may lead to compliance issues with GDPR or other regulations. The absence of contact information for incident response or security reporting further reduces security maturity. Overall, the security posture is moderate due to active bot mitigation but weakened by missing best practices and outdated software.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  2. Implement and verify modern security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enforce HTTPS with a strong SSL/TLS configuration to secure data in transit.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  5. Provide visible and accessible business contact information including security incident response contacts.
  6. Conduct a full security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
  7. Improve website content and navigation to enhance user experience and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a security CAPTCHA challenge page by BitNinja indicating visitor IP is blocked and requires CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page to verify visitors are not automated bots before allowing access to the requested content.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, 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
  • Security check page to block suspicious IPs

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a security CAPTCHA challenge (BitNinja).
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page.
  4. No contact information or business details are provided.
  5. CMS versions indicated are outdated (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5).
  6. Uses Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS details available in provided data.
  8. Page content is minimal and focused solely on bot verification.
  9. No social media or company contact emails or phone numbers found.
  10. Logo present is BitNinja branding, not the website's own brand.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 as indicated in meta tags, which are no longer supported and pose security risks. The page is a minimal CAPTCHA challenge served by BitNinja, integrating Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for tracking. No modern frameworks or hosting provider details are evident. The site shows basic mobile optimization and accessibility features but lacks SEO optimization and comprehensive metadata. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. The presence of BitNinja indicates use of a third-party security service for bot mitigation. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears outdated and in need of modernization to improve security and user experience.
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 darbadrosiba.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 darbadrosiba.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.