Skip to main content

Security report for gign.lv

GIGN.lv - Team Fortress 2 / Counter strike community portal · Other · Latvia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GIGN.lv operates as a niche community portal primarily serving gamers interested in Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike series. The site offers game servers, forums, file downloads, and social interaction features targeting a small, dedicated gaming audience mainly in Latvia. The business model revolves around community engagement and hosting gaming-related content and services. Technically, the site uses legacy JavaScript libraries like jQuery 1.4.2, integrates Google Adsense for monetization, and employs Cloudflare for DNS and likely CDN services. Performance is slow with a large page size and many resources, and mobile optimization is basic. Security posture is moderate with a valid SSL certificate and proper email authentication records (SPF, DMARC), but lacks modern security headers, HSTS, DNSSEC, and CAA records. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. Overall, the site is functional but dated, with room for modernization and improved security and privacy practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

9 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 gign.lv

This scan found 26 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
57
Security headers
20
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
55

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 portal targets a specialized gaming community with a focus on classic and popular multiplayer games. Its competitive advantage lies in its dedicated user base and provision of game servers and forums. Revenue streams appear to be primarily from advertising (Google Adsense). The site fosters community through chat and forums but lacks formal business information or corporate structure. Partnerships with platforms like Discord, Steam, and Epic Games are evident through external links. Growth indicators are limited, with dated technology and slow performance suggesting technical debt. The ecosystem is community-driven with no clear commercial expansion or parent company affiliations.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic with foundational email security measures in place but missing critical web security enhancements. The absence of HSTS, DNSSEC, and security headers exposes the site to potential man-in-the-middle and other web-based attacks. The SSL certificate is valid but lacks detailed cipher suite information, which may indicate suboptimal TLS configuration. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are found, limiting transparency and readiness. GDPR compliance is questionable due to missing privacy and cookie policies. The site would benefit from implementing modern security best practices and formalizing incident response and data protection governance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect DNS integrity and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add CAA DNS records to restrict certificate authorities authorized to issue certificates.
  4. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  5. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website relies on outdated JavaScript libraries and lacks modern web frameworks or CMS platforms, indicating a legacy codebase. Hosting is managed via Cloudflare DNS with multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, suggesting CDN or DDoS protection usage. Performance is slow with a large number of resources and page size, impacting user experience. Mobile and accessibility optimizations are minimal. Analytics and error tracking are implemented via Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Sentry, showing some level of digital maturity. However, the absence of structured metadata and modern SEO practices limits discoverability. Technical debt and security gaps present risks to operational stability and user trust.
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 gign.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 gign.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.