Skip to main content

Security report for gilis.lv

J. Ģīļa Plastikas ķirurģijas klīnika · Healthcare · Latvia

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

J. Ģīļa Plastikas ķirurģijas klīnika is a Latvian plastic surgery clinic specializing in facial, breast, and body plastic surgeries as well as cosmetic injections. The website targets a general audience seeking aesthetic and health-related services in Latvia. The business operates on a service provider model with a local/regional market focus. The website is built on WordPress with multilingual support, SEO optimization, and cookie consent mechanisms, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent implemented, but lacks explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy, though improvements in privacy policy visibility and contact information transparency are recommended.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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
    • 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. 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching gilis.lv

This scan found 22 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
62
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
88
Average
60

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 clinic positions itself as a specialized healthcare provider in the plastic surgery sector within Latvia. Its competitive advantage lies in offering a range of surgical and cosmetic services with a focus on patient health and beauty. The business model is direct service provision to patients, with growth potential through multilingual support and online presence. The partnership ecosystem is not evident from the website. The company appears small-sized and founded recently in 2021. The website content and structure support a professional image but lack detailed business disclosures such as company registration or VAT information.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly configured, and cookie consent is managed via Cookiebot with GDPR compliance settings. However, the absence of security headers like Content-Security-Policy and lack of visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicate room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site would benefit from implementing security.txt and enhancing form security. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the business type but should be strengthened to mitigate risks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and terms of service pages prominently linked on the website.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident response.
  4. Include clear and verified contact information including company emails and phone numbers.
  5. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to minimize vulnerabilities and maintain compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
J. Ģīļa Plastikas ķirurģijas klīnika
Description
Jūsu skaistums un veselība ir mūsu prioritāte! Sejas, krūšu un ķermeņa plastikas operācijas, kā arī kosmētiskās injekcijas.
Key services
Sejas plastikas operācijas, Krūšu plastikas operācijas, Ķermeņa plastikas operācijas, Kosmētiskās injekcijas
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Yoast SEO, WPML (multilingual plugin), Owl Carousel, Fancybox, Rocket Lazy Load Scripts
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with GDPR compliance settings
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a Latvian plastic surgery clinic with multilingual support (Latvian and English).
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for SEO, multilingual, and cookie consent.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot with GDPR compliance settings.
  5. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly detected in the HTML content.
  6. No visible security.txt or incident response information found.
  7. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error; domain age and registrar unknown.
  8. Website uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; content fully accessible.
  10. No adult or explicit content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with common plugins including Yoast SEO for search optimization, WPML for multilingual support, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. It uses Google Fonts, Owl Carousel, and Fancybox for UI enhancements. The site employs lazy loading scripts to optimize performance. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO practices are well implemented with meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Hosting provider details are not evident. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by optimizing scripts and assets further. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced for better compliance.
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 gilis.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 gilis.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.