Skip to main content

Security report for devacon.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

53/100

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

The website devacon.lv currently serves as a minimal maintenance or placeholder page with very limited content and no visible business information. The absence of metadata, contact details, or policies suggests the site is either under development or temporarily offline. The company behind the domain cannot be identified from the website content or WHOIS data, which is unavailable due to query limits. Technically, the site uses WordPress CMS with basic JavaScript and CSS for maintenance mode but lacks modern SEO, accessibility, and security features. Security posture is weak with no visible HTTPS confirmation or security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating low compliance with data protection regulations. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile and minimal business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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.

    • 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 devacon.lv

This scan found 16 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
77
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
25
Average
53

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

Due to the lack of business information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be registered but WHOIS data is inaccessible, preventing assessment of company legitimacy or market positioning. No partnerships, certifications, or contact channels are evident. The site likely targets a general audience but currently offers no services or content. Without further data, the business model, revenue streams, or growth indicators remain unknown.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal and insufficient for a production website. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, no privacy or cookie policies, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. The absence of contact information and WHOIS transparency further reduces trust. The site does not appear to use any advanced security frameworks or practices. This exposes the domain to potential risks including data interception, lack of compliance with GDPR, and poor user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Enable and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and transparency.
  4. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Enhance website content with metadata, navigation, and accessibility features to improve user experience and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and appears to be a maintenance or placeholder page.
  2. No metadata such as title or description is present.
  3. No forms, contact information, or social media links found.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with a maintenance stylesheet and timer script.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  6. No security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  8. No external domains linked except self-references.
  9. No advertising or analytics scripts detected.
  10. No adult or explicit content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS and currently serves a maintenance page with minimal HTML content. It includes a favicon and references to CSS and JavaScript files related to maintenance mode. No analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts are present. The site lacks meta tags, structured data, or Open Graph tags. Performance and mobile optimization are basic due to minimal content. No hosting provider or infrastructure details are discernible. The technical implementation is functional but very limited, indicating the site is not fully operational or publicly launched.
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 devacon.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 devacon.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.