Skip to main content

Security report for eutransport.lv

EU Transport · Transportation · Latvia

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

EU Transport is a Latvian transportation and logistics service provider targeting businesses and individuals in need of freight and transport solutions. The website is built on WordPress and incorporates modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Font Awesome for icons. The technical infrastructure is moderately optimized with lazy loading scripts and mobile responsiveness. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled and some privacy consent mechanisms in place, but lacks comprehensive security headers and visible privacy policies. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the website presents a functional but basic digital presence with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security best practices.

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

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

    • 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

  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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching eutransport.lv

This scan found 24 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
52
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
10
Average
50

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

The company operates in the transportation sector within Latvia, focusing on logistics and freight services. The business model is service-oriented, catering to local and regional clients. The website content is primarily in Latvian, indicating a regional focus. There is no evidence of parent or subsidiary companies, and no detailed business registration information is available. The site lacks visible trust indicators such as certifications or testimonials, which could enhance credibility. Marketing efforts include Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, but privacy compliance is minimal.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and Google Tag Manager with consent defaults that deny ad and analytics storage, indicating some awareness of privacy concerns. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, and no security certifications are visible. The absence of contact information and privacy policies further weakens compliance with GDPR and other regulations. The site would benefit from enhanced security configurations and transparent privacy practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and prominently display a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident reporting.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities and improve performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
EU Transport
Description
EU Transport is a transportation company based in Latvia offering logistics and transport services.
Key services
Logistics, Transportation, Freight services
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Google Tag Manager, Font Awesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google Tag Manager with consent defaults denying ad and analytics storage

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  2. Website uses WordPress CMS with lazy loading scripts.
  3. Google Tag Manager is implemented with consent defaults denying ad and analytics storage.
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the HTML content.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No visible certifications or security frameworks mentioned.
  8. Website content is in Latvian language and targets transportation sector.
  9. No WAF or security blocking detected.
  10. Website is accessible and content is not blocked.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS and uses modern front-end technologies such as Font Awesome for icons and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. Lazy loading scripts are implemented to optimize performance. The site is mobile responsive and has basic SEO meta tags. However, the absence of advanced security headers and limited privacy compliance features indicate technical debt in security and compliance areas. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the HTML content. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in accessibility and SEO optimization.
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 eutransport.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 eutransport.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.