Skip to main content

Security report for doms.lv

Rīgas Doms · Non-profit · Latvia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rīgas Doms operates as a non-profit religious and cultural organization based in Riga, Latvia, providing religious services, concerts, and tourism information. The website serves as a portal for parishioners and visitors, offering event schedules, spiritual content, and visitor guidance. The organization maintains a modest but consistent online presence with clear branding and structured navigation, targeting a general audience interested in religious and cultural activities. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including jQuery, Velocity.js, Font Awesome, and Google Fonts, with a responsive design suitable for mobile devices. The site is served over HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communication. However, there is a lack of advanced security headers and no visible CMS or hosting provider information. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. From a security perspective, the site shows basic good practices such as HTTPS usage and no visible sensitive data exposure. However, the absence of privacy and cookie policies, security headers, and contact information for incident response reduces compliance and security posture. The WHOIS data could not be retrieved, limiting domain trust analysis. Overall, the site is safe and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced security and privacy measures.

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

9 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 doms.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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
56

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

Rīgas Doms holds a stable position as a local religious and cultural institution in Latvia, focusing on community engagement through worship services and cultural events like concerts. The business model is non-profit, relying on donations and community participation. The website supports this by providing event information and spiritual resources. The organization leverages social media platforms to extend its reach and engagement. There is no evidence of commercial activities or subsidiaries. Growth indicators are modest, aligned with its community-focused mission. Partnerships with related religious organizations are indicated through external links. The website content and structure reflect a clear understanding of its target audience and mission.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is basic to moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented, which is essential. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others is a gap that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No forms or input fields were detected, reducing attack surface, but also limiting user interaction. There is no visible incident response or security policy information, which is a compliance gap especially under GDPR and NIS2 frameworks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the provided content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies further impacts compliance and user trust. Overall, the security culture appears minimal but functional.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and data protection officer to improve incident response readiness.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO optimization to improve user experience and reach.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rīgas Doms
Description
Rīgas Doma mājas lapa: draudze, koncerti un tūrisma informācija.
Key services
Religious services and sermons, Concerts and musical events, Tourism information and visitor services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Velocity.js, Font Awesome, Google Fonts, Revolution Slider
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected from provided scripts

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided in the HTML content.
  4. Social media presence is strong with official Facebook, YouTube, and SoundCloud links.
  5. Website uses HTTPS and modern JavaScript libraries.
  6. No forms detected on the homepage HTML content.
  7. No structured data (JSON-LD) found in the HTML.
  8. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  9. Content is focused on religious services, concerts, and visitor information.
  10. No signs of suspicious or malicious content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a combination of popular JavaScript libraries and CSS frameworks to deliver a visually appealing and responsive user experience. The use of Google Fonts and Font Awesome enhances design consistency. The presence of Revolution Slider indicates dynamic content presentation. The site is served over HTTPS, which is a positive security indicator. However, no CMS or hosting provider information was detected, which limits insight into backend infrastructure. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed and accessibility. The absence of structured data (JSON-LD) is a missed opportunity for SEO enhancement. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from modernization and security hardening.
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 doms.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 doms.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.