Skip to main content

Security report for e-kom.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

67/100

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

The website e-kom.lv is currently inaccessible for normal browsing due to a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page that blocks automated or suspicious traffic. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) service to mitigate cyber threats. No business content, contact information, or policies are available on the landing page, which limits the ability to assess the company's market position or services. The technical infrastructure shows legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) referenced in meta tags, which are outdated and pose security risks. Google Analytics is used for visitor tracking. The security posture is moderate due to the presence of a CAPTCHA challenge but lacks visible HTTPS confirmation, security headers, or updated CMS versions. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, reducing transparency and trust. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state, preventing comprehensive analysis and indicating a need for modernization and improved transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

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

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

Keep watching e-kom.lv

This scan found 18 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
72
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
67

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 accessible business content, no clear market positioning, business model, or revenue streams can be identified. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja security services, suggesting a focus on cybersecurity or hosting protection. No contact details or partnership information is available. The presence of outdated CMS versions suggests potential technical debt and risk. Without WHOIS data or company information, the business credibility is low. The target audience is general web visitors, but the site currently serves as a security checkpoint rather than a business portal.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by the use of BitNinja's WAF and CAPTCHA challenge to prevent automated attacks, which is a positive control. However, the lack of visible HTTPS enforcement, absence of security headers, and outdated CMS versions are significant vulnerabilities. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. Incident response contacts and security policies are not disclosed. The site is at risk of exploitation due to legacy software and lack of transparency. Overall, security controls are partially implemented but require significant improvements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Upgrade CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  4. Publish contact information including security incident response contacts to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Deploy security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website is currently blocked by BitNinja security service showing a CAPTCHA challenge to verify visitor legitimacy and prevent automated access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
The website is currently showing a security CAPTCHA challenge page to validate visitors and prevent automated/bot access. No business description or services are presented.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Google Analytics, BitNinja security
Frameworks
Joomla, WordPress
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of CAPTCHA for bot mitigation
  • Integration with BitNinja security service

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
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 blocked by a security CAPTCHA challenge from BitNinja.
  2. No business or contact information is presented on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. Outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags, which may pose security risks.
  5. Google Analytics is used for tracking.
  6. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  8. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  9. Website is not accessible for normal content analysis due to WAF block.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated by meta tags, which are outdated and unsupported, posing security risks. Google Analytics is integrated for tracking user behavior. The site is protected by BitNinja's security service, which presents a CAPTCHA challenge to visitors, indicating a WAF in place. No information on hosting provider or server infrastructure is available. The page is mobile responsive at a basic level but lacks modern SEO and accessibility features. Performance data is unavailable due to the blocked content state. The technical stack requires modernization and improved security configurations.
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 e-kom.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 e-kom.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.