Skip to main content

Security report for edgarsfoto.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website edgarsfoto.lv is currently inaccessible due to a Web Application Firewall (WAF) security challenge page powered by BitNinja.IO. The page displays a redirect countdown and browser integrity checks, blocking access to any meaningful content or business information. The metadata indicates the site uses outdated CMS versions such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which may pose security risks. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or social media information is available. WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details and reducing trustworthiness. Overall, the site shows poor technical implementation, minimal SEO, and accessibility features, resulting in a low security posture and business credibility score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

8 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 edgarsfoto.lv

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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
63

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 WAF blocking and lack of accessible content, no detailed business intelligence can be derived. The site appears to be small scale with no visible business model, market positioning, or key services. The only external domain linked is the WAF provider bitninja.io. The presence of outdated CMS versions suggests potential neglect or lack of maintenance. No partnership or subsidiary domains were identified.

Security posture

The security posture is limited by the presence of a WAF challenge page, which while providing some protection, also blocks legitimate analysis. The site lacks visible security headers and does not confirm HTTPS usage. Outdated CMS versions increase vulnerability risk. No privacy or cookie policies are found, indicating poor compliance with data protection regulations. Incident response and security policy information are absent. Overall, the security maturity is low with critical gaps in transparency and technical safeguards.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and confirm HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact and incident response information to improve trust and transparency.
  5. Review and optimize website for mobile responsiveness, accessibility, and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked by a security check page powered by BitNinja.IO WAF, showing a redirect countdown and browser integrity check. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

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 is currently inaccessible due to a WAF security challenge page.
  2. No meaningful content or business information is accessible.
  3. Outdated CMS versions indicated in metadata (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) suggest potential security risks.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No contact information or social media links detected.
  6. Only external link is to bitninja.io, the WAF provider.
  7. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  8. Website shows minimal SEO and accessibility optimization.
  9. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which are outdated and unsupported, posing security and compatibility risks. The site is currently served behind a BitNinja.IO WAF that blocks content access with a redirect and browser integrity check. No modern analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies are detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, and SEO metadata is minimal and generic. Performance is likely slow due to the blocking mechanism and outdated platform. No hosting provider information is discernible.
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 edgarsfoto.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 edgarsfoto.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.