Skip to main content

Security report for enter.dev

Enter · Technology · Latvia

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Enter is a small technology company based in Latvia, established in 2005, specializing in tailored software and hardware development solutions. Their services include system and business analysis, CRM and intranet development, mobile applications, product and electronics design, and graphic/UI/UX design. The company targets businesses requiring custom development solutions across various sectors such as banking, insurance, logistics, and consumer products. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image with clear navigation and relevant content, though it lacks privacy and cookie policies. Technically, the website uses standard HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript with jQuery, but lacks modern frameworks or CMS. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. Security posture is weak due to absence of security headers and unclear SSL configuration. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. Overall, the security posture is moderate with room for improvement in compliance and security best practices. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing trustworthiness. The website content is safe for general audiences with no adult or questionable material. Strategic recommendations include implementing privacy and cookie policies, enhancing security headers and SSL configuration, adding vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts, and improving mobile optimization and accessibility to strengthen the overall digital maturity and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

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

Keep watching enter.dev

This scan found 19 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
Security headers
15
Email security
100
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
70

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

Enter operates as a bespoke technology service provider with a focus on custom software and hardware solutions. Their market positioning is that of an established niche player with a diverse client base across multiple industries. The business model revolves around service delivery rather than product sales, targeting enterprises needing tailored development. The company demonstrates trust through client logos and detailed team information. Growth indicators include a long operational history and a broad service portfolio. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the website content or WHOIS data. Revenue streams likely derive from project-based contracts and ongoing support services.

Security posture

The website exhibits a basic security maturity level with no visible security headers and no documented security policies or incident response procedures. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, limiting transparency for security researchers. The use of HTTPS is assumed but not confirmed from the HTML content alone. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. Overall, the security culture appears minimal, with recommendations to adopt standard security headers, formalize privacy compliance, and establish incident response contacts to improve resilience and trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is enforced with strong SSL/TLS configuration and test for vulnerabilities.
  4. Publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility to improve user experience and compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Enter
Description
Enter is a technology company established in 2005 offering tailored software and hardware development solutions, including system and business analysis, CRM/WHM/Intranet, mobile applications, product design, and electronics development. They serve diverse sectors such as banking, insurance, logistics, and consumer products.
Key services
System and business analysis, CRM/WHM/Intranet development, Mobile applications, Product design, Electronics development, Graphic and UI/UX design
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, jQuery
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  3. Contact information is clearly provided with email, phone, and physical address.
  4. No security headers detected in the HTML content; security posture could be improved.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
  6. Website content is professional, well-structured, and relevant to the business domain.
  7. No social media links found on the website.
  8. No forms present on the website; minimal data collection observed.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript with jQuery. No modern frameworks or CMS platforms are detected, indicating a custom or lightweight implementation. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization techniques observed. Mobile responsiveness is basic but functional. SEO optimization is minimal with meta tags present but no structured data or rich snippets. Accessibility features are limited. No third-party analytics or tracking scripts are used, reducing privacy concerns but also limiting marketing insights. Hosting provider and SSL details are not discernible from the HTML content. Overall, the technical infrastructure is simple and stable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced 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 enter.dev. 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 enter.dev.

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.