Skip to main content

Security report for fizio-elina.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

54/100

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

The website fizio-elina.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a BitNinja CAPTCHA security challenge page, which blocks automated or suspicious traffic. This challenge page prevents access to any actual business content or services, limiting the ability to analyze the company's offerings or market position. The visible page is minimal, serving only to validate visitors as non-robots before granting access. The site uses legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, suggesting outdated or placeholder content. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts indicates some level of digital tracking, but no privacy or cookie policies are published. Technically, the site employs Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation but lacks visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers in the HTML content. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details. Overall, the site demonstrates a low level of digital maturity and security transparency. From a security perspective, the BitNinja CAPTCHA indicates proactive bot and abuse mitigation but also suggests prior suspicious activity or automated traffic issues. The absence of privacy, cookie, and contact information, combined with no visible business details, results in a low trust and credibility rating. The site is safe in terms of content, containing no adult or explicit material, but the lack of accessible business information and security best practices poses risks. Strategically, the site requires significant improvements in transparency, security posture, and user experience to build trust and comply with privacy regulations. Until the CAPTCHA challenge is removed and actual business content is accessible, comprehensive analysis remains limited.

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

  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

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

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

Keep watching fizio-elina.lv

This scan found 13 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. See sample alerts.

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
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
54

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 website being blocked by a security CAPTCHA, no direct business information or market positioning can be ascertained. The site appears to be a small-scale entity or individual site with no visible branding or company details. The use of outdated CMS references and lack of contact information suggest limited business maturity or maintenance. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or revenue models are identifiable. The target audience cannot be determined from the accessible content. The presence of Google Analytics indicates some interest in user metrics, but overall business intelligence is minimal.

Security posture

The website employs BitNinja's security CAPTCHA to mitigate automated and potentially malicious traffic, indicating an active security control to prevent abuse. However, the lack of HTTPS enforcement visible in the HTML, absence of security headers, and no published privacy or cookie policies highlight significant compliance and security gaps. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting domain legitimacy verification. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. Overall, the security posture is low to moderate, relying mainly on external CAPTCHA protection without comprehensive security best practices implemented on the site itself.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  4. Provide clear and accessible contact information and business details to improve credibility and compliance.
  5. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and accurate to support domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website displays a BitNinja CAPTCHA security challenge blocking access to the actual content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No actual business content is accessible on the page.
  3. No contact, privacy, cookie, or terms of service information found.
  4. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  5. Uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, possibly legacy or placeholder.
  6. Includes Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts for tracking.
  7. No visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers in HTML content.
  8. No company branding or business details visible beyond CAPTCHA page.
  9. Page is minimal and designed solely for bot validation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms indicated by meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and potentially vulnerable. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and data collection. The presence of Google reCAPTCHA via recaptcha.net is a positive security measure against bots. The site lacks visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers in the HTML content. Performance appears moderate given the minimal content, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta descriptions, keywords relevance, and no structured data. The site is hosted behind BitNinja's security service, which blocks access via CAPTCHA, limiting content availability and analysis.
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 fizio-elina.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 fizio-elina.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.