Skip to main content

Security report for geopolitics.center

Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga · Government · Latvia

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

The Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga is an independent research think-tank established in 2022 and based in Latvia. It specializes in analyzing security dilemmas and geopolitical rivalries primarily in the Baltic Sea region. The organization targets policymakers, academics, and geopolitical analysts, providing research outputs and analysis to inform regional security discussions. The website is hosted on Google Sites, leveraging Google Fonts and Google Analytics for basic digital infrastructure. While the site is accessible and uses HTTPS, it lacks comprehensive privacy and security policies, and no direct contact information is provided, which limits transparency and user trust. The social media presence across LinkedIn, Twitter (X), Instagram, and Facebook supports outreach and engagement efforts.

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

4 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

  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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching geopolitics.center

This scan found 15 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. 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
95
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
79

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 think-tank operates in the government and non-profit sectors, focusing on geopolitical research. Its market position is niche, serving a specialized audience interested in Baltic regional security. The business model is research-driven without evident commercial activities on the website. The absence of detailed business or legal information and lack of contact details suggest a small organizational size with limited digital maturity. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed, and no related or subsidiary domains were identified. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not disclosed, consistent with a non-commercial research entity.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS, which is a fundamental security measure. However, it lacks additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options, which could improve protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is available, indicating limited transparency in security practices. The absence of privacy and terms of service documents, as well as contact channels for security incidents, represents compliance gaps, particularly under GDPR and related regulations. The use of Google Analytics introduces minimal user tracking, but cookie consent is implemented, showing some privacy awareness. Overall, the security posture is basic and could be enhanced with standard best practices and policy disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve transparency and compliance.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security-related inquiries.
  4. Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance website accessibility and mobile optimization to improve user experience and reach.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga
Description
Established in 2022, the Center for Geopolitical Studies Riga is an independent research think-tank based in Latvia. It focuses on security dilemmas and geopolitical rivalries in the Baltic Sea region and beyond.
Key services
Research publications, Geopolitical analysis, Regional security studies
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Fonts, Google Analytics, Google Sites, Elfsight Widgets
Platforms
Google Sites
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is hosted on Google Sites platform with standard Google services integration.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to malformed request or privacy protection.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on site.
  4. Cookie consent banner present indicating some privacy compliance effort.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the site.
  6. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter (X), Instagram, and Facebook.
  7. Content is focused on geopolitical research and regional security.
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  9. Security headers and policies are minimal; HTTPS is enforced.
  10. No forms detected that collect user data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Google Sites platform, which provides a simple CMS and hosting environment. It uses Google Fonts for typography and integrates Google Analytics for visitor tracking. The site loads moderately fast and is mobile responsive at a basic level. There is no evidence of custom backend frameworks or advanced technical infrastructure. The reliance on Google services ensures stable hosting but limits customization and advanced security configurations. The site lacks advanced SEO optimizations and accessibility features, indicating opportunities for technical improvements to support growth and professionalism.
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 geopolitics.center. 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 geopolitics.center.

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.