Skip to main content

Security report for ecocost.lt

EcoCost · Government · Lithuania

High risk. 12 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

29/100

Risk levelHigh

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

EcoCost is a Lithuanian-based company specializing in comprehensive public procurement solutions, including an intelligent procurement management platform, consulting services for contracting authorities, and training for procurement specialists and initiators. The website presents a professional and well-structured digital presence built on WordPress, incorporating modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA to enhance analytics and security. However, the absence of accessible WHOIS data due to registry query limits limits the ability to fully verify domain registration details and ownership legitimacy. Security posture is moderate with some best practices observed, but lacks explicit security headers and detailed privacy or cookie policies. Overall, the website is functional and business-focused but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

12 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  4. 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

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

Keep watching ecocost.lt

This scan found 23 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
0
Average
29

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 · found on this site
  • 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

EcoCost operates in the government sector, targeting public procurement organizations and professionals in Lithuania. Its business model revolves around providing SaaS platform services combined with consulting and training, positioning itself as a niche player in the public procurement market. The company appears to be small-sized with a focused service offering. The website content is relevant and consistent with its business goals, but lacks visible trust indicators such as certifications or client testimonials. The absence of clear contact details and WHOIS data reduces business credibility from a digital trust perspective.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA to mitigate automated abuse and uses Google Tag Manager for analytics, indicating some level of security and monitoring maturity. However, no security headers were detected, and there is no visible incident response or security policy information. The lack of privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. The WHOIS data unavailability further complicates trust verification. Security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing standard security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear security incident contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration and verify via external tools.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Publish terms of service and security policies to enhance transparency and trust.
  4. Include explicit contact information including security incident response contacts (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails).
  5. Configure and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. WHOIS query limit exceeded message indicates blocking by the registry WHOIS server; no WHOIS data available. No other WAF challenge detected in HTML content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
EcoCost
Description
Kompleksiniai viešųjų pirkimų sprendimai. Išmani viešųjų pirkimų valdymo platforma. Konsultacijos perkančiosioms organizacijoms. Pirkimų specialistų ir iniciatorių mokymai.
Key services
Viešųjų pirkimų valdymo platforma, Konsultacijos perkančiosioms organizacijoms, Pirkimų specialistų ir iniciatorių mokymai
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA, Lfeeder tracker
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Lfeeder
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and contains substantive business content.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limit exceeded error from the registry.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content.
  5. Use of Google reCAPTCHA and Google Tag Manager indicates some security and analytics maturity.
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  7. No visible security or incident response contact information.
  8. Website uses WordPress CMS with a professional theme and styling.
  9. External domains used are mostly trusted third-party services for fonts and analytics.
  10. No suspicious or malicious indicators found in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern theme and uses external services for fonts and analytics. Performance is moderate with mobile optimization rated good. SEO meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD) are well implemented, supporting good search engine visibility. However, no advanced frameworks or hosting provider details were identified. The WHOIS query limit issue prevents domain registration verification. Technical debt appears low but security and privacy documentation gaps exist.
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 ecocost.lt. 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 ecocost.lt.

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.